Oral
Answers to
Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Syria

Simon Hoare: What steps she is taking to provide humanitarian assistance to people in Syria.

Royston Smith: What steps she is taking to provide humanitarian assistance to people in Syria.

Alistair Burt: The United Kingdom is at the forefront of the humanitarian response and has been providing life-saving support to millions of people across Syria from the start of the conflict. To date, we have committed £2.71 billion, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. This includes the provision of more than 27 million food rations and 10 million relief packages since 2012.

Simon Hoare: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Just before Christmas, I had the rather humbling honour of meeting two Syrian families who fled the horror of that country to find sanctuary in Shaftesbury in my constituency, where they are making their new home. The pictures that they showed me and the stories that they told were indeed horrible. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, notwithstanding everything else that is going on, Her Majesty’s Government has not forgotten Syria and the underlying and ever pressing need for peace?

Alistair Burt: I can assure my hon. Friend that no one in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department for International Development has forgotten Syria. We are all shocked and moved by the plight of those who have suffered so much, and I am familiar with some of the pictures that my hon. Friend describes. We are engaged diplomatically and in humanitarian terms every day in relation to Syria.

Royston Smith: Although Daesh is significantly weakened in Syria, a US departure could leave a vacuum that could cause more misery. Does the Minister expect the focus of humanitarian assistance in Syria to change as a result of the withdrawal of US troops?

Alistair Burt: The full details of the impact of the US withdrawal have yet to be worked through. Our focus on humanitarian aid will not be changed, and we continue to monitor the situation closely as it develops. Our focus on providing humanitarian assistance to millions of people displaced both externally and internally will remain.

Stephen Twigg: The possibility of a US withdrawal raises serious concerns about civilian protection. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to work with agencies on the ground to ensure that, particularly in the Kurdish-controlled areas and in Idlib, as much as possible is done to protect civilians?

Alistair Burt: Yes indeed. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chair of the Select Committee, we are very concerned about the potential implications, particularly on the Turkish-Syrian border. We are in constant contact with our partners in relation to this and with humanitarian agencies, which are fully abreast of the consequences of actions that have not yet happened. Everything is being done to try to encourage a peaceful resolution of the political conflicts there.

Ann Clwyd: Are any plans in place to deal with what will be, I suspect, the increasing humanitarian needs of Syrian Kurds in particular, especially if they are attacked by the Turkish military?

Alistair Burt: As I indicated to the Chair of the Select Committee, we are all extremely concerned about the potential implications of US withdrawal and what it might mean on the Turkish border in relation to Kurdish areas. Humanitarian agencies are very alert to this, but politically we are doing what we can with partners to minimise any risk of confrontation there.

Alex Chalk: What assessment is it possible to make of the number of lives that have been saved in Syria as a result of the historic financial contribution to the aid effort by the United Kingdom?

Alistair Burt: It is difficult to put full figures on this, to be honest. We believe, as I indicated earlier, that we have provided 27 million food rations, 40 million medical consultations, 10 million relief packages, and 10 million vaccines. If we look at all those whose lives have been protected—the 3.5 million in Turkey, the 1.5 million in Lebanon and the 1 million in Jordan— we can see  that United Kingdom aid has played a significant part in that.

Chris Law: Last year the UK Government cut funding to aid programmes in rebel-held Syria, instead shifting focus to this valuable humanitarian work in the region. Nonetheless, groups such as the Free Syrian police, whom we supported throughout  the conflict, continue to face a number of threats from the regime as they continue their valuable work. Will the Secretary of State assure me that her Department has not simply abandoned these people and that their ongoing protection is still a matter of serious concern for the UK Government?

Alistair Burt: DFID’s aid has always been focused on humanitarian need, regardless of who has been in control of territory. Provided we can be assured that aid and support are not diverted for terrorist or extremist purposes but get through to those who are in need, that is the guiding principle on which we work, and will continue to be the principle on which DFID will provide humanitarian aid.

Gender Equality

Nigel Huddleston: What steps her Department is taking to improve gender equality for women throughout the world.

Penny Mordaunt: Gender equality is considered in the design of all DFID’s programmes, and is essential to achieving the sustainable development goals. Between 2015 and 2018, UK aid provided 16.9 million women and girls with modern methods of family planning, and helped 5.6 million girls to gain access to a decent education.

Nigel Huddleston: Action on Poverty, a charity based in my constituency, has done some tremendous work in Africa and Asia, including helping thousands of women to set up their own businesses. What more can the Department do to assist charities like Action on Poverty?

Penny Mordaunt: I pay tribute to the work that Action on Poverty has done, and, indeed, to my hon. Friend’s support for that organisation. We are currently helping it, through UK Aid Direct, to improve livelihoods and food security in Sierra Leone, but, more widely, we want to increase the number of small and medium-sized charities and other organisations with which we work to deliver the global goals.

Barry Sheerman: Let me ask the Secretary of State a pertinent question about empowering women. Does she agree that all the research shows that allowing them to start their own businesses and have control over their own lives is one of the best ways of empowering them, and that that often means giving them the finance that will enable them to start a small business?

Penny Mordaunt: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Not only the future of womankind but the future of mankind depends on that happening.

David Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that in many parts of the world women and girls are still not being given the education that they deserve, or the same education as men and boys? What is her Department doing to help to alleviate that discrimination and highlight the need for equal opportunities?

Penny Mordaunt: Globally, 63 million girls between the ages of five and 15 are out of school. Under the auspices of the Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), we are supporting the global education partnership and, within that, the education challenge. We have refreshed our own education strategy to ensure that it is not just about girls in classrooms, but about the quality  of education that they are receiving. Only through a concerted effort in that respect, and by asking other partners to step up, will we ensure that every woman and girl has a decent education.

Dan Carden: I welcome the Secretary of State’s ambitious strategy on gender equality, which is a heartening step towards Labour’s feminist approach to international development, but these commitments will remain just warm words if, as we learned last month, 20%—600—of DFID’s staff are to be reassigned to other Departments to help to manage the Tories’ Brexit shambles. Will the Secretary of State tell the House very specifically what impact she expects that huge cut to have on her gender equality strategy, and, indeed, on all her Department’s work?

Penny Mordaunt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role and sincerely wish him well in it, but his assertion is incorrect. That is not the number of staff who have been redeployed. I think that, currently, the grand total of DFID staff who are helping other Departments is 25. However, if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about a no-deal situation, he knows what he needs to do: he needs to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal.

Dan Carden: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her warm words, but I note that she did not rule out the possibility of 600 staff leaving the Department.
Many Members will have been deeply concerned by reports in the media last week that DFID’s independence may once again be up for debate in this summer’s comprehensive spending review, although merging DFID with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would fly in the face of the evidence of how our aid budget can make the greatest impact. Given that more UK aid money is already being spent by other Departments, given the brazen attempts to use aid to win trade deals, and given that 600 staff are on their way out, is the Secretary of State not overseeing the managed decline of the Department for International Development ?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Gentleman quotes many statistics and figures at me, so I will help him by quoting some back. All of what he says is not true so, as he starts his new role, I encourage him to talk about the 17 global goals that I hope everyone on both sides of the House is looking to deliver. What he said is not correct.

HIV/AIDS

Gillian Keegan: What steps she is taking to help eradicate HIV/AIDS in developing countries.

Alistair Burt: The United Kingdom is a world leader in efforts to end the AIDS epidemic, including through our major investment in the Global Fund, which provided 17.5 million people with treatment in 2017. We are working to expand access to treatment while reducing new infections, particularly among adolescent girls, women and other groups who face stigma and discrimination.

Gillian Keegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Along with medication, education has been transforming the spread of HIV in the UK, with infections falling by 28% since 2015. In sub-Saharan Africa, however, three  in four new infections among 15 to 19-year-olds affect girls, and globally young women are twice as likely to be infected with HIV as men their age. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to curb HIV infections within the most vulnerable and susceptible groups?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Women and young girls are indeed a vulnerable group in relation to AIDS. Ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 is a priority for the UK, which I was able to re-emphasise when speaking at the International AIDS Conference in Amsterdam earlier this year. Tackling AIDS is possible only if we target the most vulnerable populations, which we are doing by focusing on adolescents in the sexual and reproductive health programmes that we support.

Preet Kaur Gill: Analysis from the STOPAIDS coalition shows that, despite increased funding to multilaterals, overall DFID funding for HIV programmes has been falling, with bilateral funding for HIV programming falling from £221 million in 2009 to just £13 million in 2017. What steps is the Department taking to fill the funding gap created by that cut? If the Secretary of State is to shift spending to multilateral mechanisms, will the Minister confirm whether the Department will continue to invest in the Global Fund at the sixth replenishment conference in October 2019?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. There is sometimes a difficulty with comparing spending when taking a snapshot, because programmes last for different lengths of time, but she is right to recognise our strong commitment to the Global Fund. We invested £1.2 billion in the current replenishment process, and we also provided extra assistance to the Robert Carr civil society Networks Fund during the course of this year. We will ensure that funding continues to go to programmes, and we do our best to track it when it goes into the wider programmes where the AIDS spending will actually happen. That remains a priority for us.

Michael Fabricant: The Uganda Virus Research Institute does a huge amount of work on HIV/AIDS and, of course, was jointly set up with the British Government back in 1988. What work is the institute doing? What can the Government do to strengthen both that work and the institute’s Ebola research?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that programme. In fact, my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa visited the programme recently and was able to see its valuable work on both AIDS and Ebola. That sort of ministerial commitment demonstrates our support on the ground, which will continue and intensify.

Afghanistan: Hazara Community

Adrian Bailey: What steps her Department has taken to provide humanitarian support to civilians from the Hazara community displaced by the Taliban’s recent offensive in central Afghanistan.

Penny Mordaunt: UK aid provided 2 million people in Afghanistan with life-saving support last year, including members of the Hazara community. The provision of humanitarian assistance is based on need and is delivered across the country, and it includes food, shelter and clean water. Humanitarian partners have been assisting displaced people in central Afghanistan, but they have not requested new funding.

Adrian Bailey: On 4 December, the Minister for Asia and the Pacific said that British embassy staff had met Afghan Government representatives from the affected area to discuss the situation. Can the Secretary of State update us on the progress made on the humanitarian front and on any developments since that meeting?

Penny Mordaunt: Obviously I do not know the precise meeting to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because of course we frequently meet regional representatives, as well as meeting representatives based in Kabul. We are assisting people, particularly in that region, because of the territorial changes and the new pressures. At the moment there has not been a further call on us to provide any further assistance in that respect, although in other areas of Afghanistan we have leaned in because of the drought.

SDG10: Reducing Inequality

Danielle Rowley: What steps her Department is taking to ensure that the UK meets sustainable development goal 10 on reducing inequality.

Harriett Baldwin: The Department for International Development’s mission is to reduce inequality by ending extreme poverty.

Danielle Rowley: We often talk in this place, at least on this side of the House, about the importance of universal public services like the NHS and inclusive education in ensuring that everyone, regardless of income, has access to essential services, which will bring about more equal societies. What is the Department doing to ensure that UK aid better supports the development of universal free public services in the countries in which it works?

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that forms a core part of our work not only on ending extreme poverty but in providing access to essential, lifesaving services. Whether it is helping with infants and preventing maternal mortality or providing 12 years of quality education, the Department is working around the world on those opportunities.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend will be aware that I am a member of the independent commission on sexual misconduct set up by Oxfam following the Haiti issues and that the commission is about to produce its interim report. Does she agree that the way in which staff are treated by non-governmental organisations, showing proper respect and reducing inequality, is an important step towards meeting this development goal?

Harriett Baldwin: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the work he is doing on this important issue. Last year the Department took a leadership role on addressing such issues not only within the Department but within the providers we work with around the world.

Jim Cunningham: What progress has the Department made in engaging with children and young people to achieve sustainable development goal 16.2 to end abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against children?

Harriett Baldwin: Through our own work, through the International Citizen Service and through our work with many of our partner organisations, including UNICEF, we are working extensively on this issue. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the UK is the largest donor to the Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children.

Caroline Spelman: Does the Minister agree that it will be impossible to meet sustainable development goal 10 unless people with disabilities are included in all our humanitarian and development work?

Harriett Baldwin: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this, which is why last year the UK held the disability summit and launched the disability strategy to make sure that those people are truly included in all our development work.

Topical Questions

Bambos Charalambous: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Penny Mordaunt: The current Ebola virus outbreak has claimed 377 lives in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to date, and more than 600 people have tested positive for the disease. The response effort has been good, but it has been hampered by terrible insecurity in the region, with many humanitarian workers under fire while trying to initiate vaccinations. More than 200 people have survived the virus and the rate of infection is slow. Yesterday, I spoke to Dr Tedros of the World Health Organisation, who has just returned from the country, about what more we can do to contain the outbreak over the next several months. The UK has stepped up its support in response to the situation in the DRC and its preparedness throughout the region. It is a critical time for other nations to do the same.

Andrew Rosindell: The good news is that once we leave the European Union we can get rid of tariffs on products from our friends in the African world. What discussion have the Government had with African countries about increasing trade and development after Brexit?

John Bercow: We have not heard from Mr Charalambous. We must hear from the feller!

Bambos Charalambous: The all-party group on vaccinations for all, of which I am a member, will release a report next week that highlights the fact that globally one in 10 children do not receive any of the 11 essential World Health Organisation-recommended vaccines. Does the Secretary of State agree that ensuring that all children are fully immunised should be a priority of this Government and vital organisations such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance?

Penny Mordaunt: I am extremely glad that the hon. Gentleman got to ask that question, because Gavi is our highest performing multilateral partner. It is absolutely right that we keep the programme strong. I shall visit Gavi’s Bognor Regis facility next week. Between 2016 and 2020, UK Aid will have vaccinated 76 million children, saving 1.4 million lives.
Mr Speaker, I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa is ready to answer Topical Question 3 without its having to be repeated.

John Bercow: Indeed. Let us hear from the Minister for Africa.

Harriett Baldwin: May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that there will indeed be scope not only to copy across the existing favourable trade arrangements but to increase the favourability in terms of access to the UK market for many of the poorest countries in the world post Brexit.

Bridget Phillipson: Pregnancy and childbirth are incredibly dangerous times for women throughout the developing world, where the vast majority of maternal deaths take place. What more will the Secretary of State be doing this year to ensure that pregnant women and those in childbirth receive the same basic level of healthcare support that many of us here are able to take for granted?

Alistair Burt: Our commitment to global health is designed to ensure that focus is placed on the most vulnerable, and our support for sustainable health systems ensures that the work that is going on to improve maternity and pregnancy services in so many parts of the world is supported and bolstered by the work that we do both in country and multilaterally.

Will Quince: Sadly, Ethiopia has one of the worst neonatal mortality records in the world. Will the Minister join me in thanking all those in Colchester, including the CHUFT Blanketeers, who have been busy knitting in support of my campaign to send thousands of knitted hats for newborn babies in Ethiopia?

Harriett Baldwin: Ethiopia is one of the countries in which the Department for International Development has extensive programmes. I am very pleased to hear that the good folk of Colchester are supplementing that work with this wonderful project to knit hats for babies.

Gareth Snell: Without realising it, many Members of this House will own an item of clothing made by a slave from an overseas country. What more will the Secretary of State do to make sure that her Department, along  with the Department for International Trade and its independent trade policy, tackles modern slavery not only at home but abroad?

Penny Mordaunt: Under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we have led the charge on tackling modern slavery globally, including at the United Nations General Assembly this year where we increased our financial contribution to £200 million to combat the issue. Critically, we have also held events with the private sector, because it is only with the private sector and by ensuring transparency, knowledge and security across all of its supply chains that we can eradicate this terrible practice from the world.

Trudy Harrison: Will the Minister explain to the House what steps she is taking to improve primary education in Pakistan?

Harriett Baldwin: As the House will know, we work worldwide, including extensively in Pakistan, to fund education. Literally millions of children are accessing 12 years of quality education thanks to the work of the Department for International Development.

Daniel Zeichner: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much of the international development budget has been diverted to the Ministry of Defence?

Penny Mordaunt: I have good news for the hon. Gentleman because, even with our immense skills, it is impossible to spend any of the 0.7% on anything that is not official development assistance-eligible. I encourage all Opposition Members, as they hopefully join us to deliver the global goals, to start working for a change with the private sector and the armed forces, without which we will not be able to deliver the humanitarian relief that we wish to deliver or achieve those goals.

Richard Graham: The US decision to stop funding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency support to Palestine risks vital education and healthcare services there. I welcome DFID’s decision to increase funding in the short term, but is that sustainable in the longer term?

Alistair Burt: We and other donors have moved very rapidly this year to seek to cover a shortfall in UNRWA funding. Work is going on to ensure that, in the long term, UNRWA is sustainable. Ultimately, though, the issue is not UNRWA, but the unresolved situation of refugees.

Jo Swinson: Does the Secretary of State see the huge contradiction between the vital work that DFID does helping countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change and UK Export Finance continuing to subsidise billions of fossil fuel projects?

Harriett Baldwin: I assure the hon. Lady that, on climate change, we continue to improve access to clean energy for millions of people worldwide. That is an important part of the work that we do within our UK aid budget.

John Bercow: Order. Just before we begin Prime Minister’s questions, I hope that colleagues across the House will want to join me in welcoming to the House of Commons today the former Member of Parliament for Glasgow Central and now the Governor of the Punjab, our friend Mohammad Sarwar. Welcome Mohammad.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Drew Hendry: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 9 January.

Theresa May: I am sure that the whole House would like to join me in paying tribute to Lord Paddy Ashdown who sadly died last month. From his service in the Royal Marines through to his time in this House and then as High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, he served his country with passion and distinction and he will be sorely missed.
In recent days, we have seen instances of threats of violence or intimidation against Members of this House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and members of the media. I know the whole House will join me in condemning those threats. Politicians and the media should be able to go about their work without harassment and intimidation.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Drew Hendry: I echo the Prime Minister’s comments on Lord Paddy Ashdown and, of course, on the disgraceful behaviour and threats to politicians and journalists going about their business.
Like those in the rest of the UK, 235,000 EU nationals in Scotland were treated to a Christmas removal threat via social media from the UK Home Office telling them to register if they want to stay in the UK after December 2020. Friends, neighbours, colleagues—people vital to the Scottish economy—were shamefully told to pay to stay in their own homes. Will the Prime Minister confirm what will happen to those not registered by December 2020? Does she realise that, for those affected, this feels less like a hostile environment and more like a xenophobic one?

Theresa May: We recognise the huge contribution that EU citizens have made to our economy and our society, and we want them to stay. The EU settlement scheme will make it simple and straightforward for them to get the status that they need. EU citizens have until June 2021 to apply and the cost of applying is less than the cost of renewing a British passport, but if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the interests of EU citizens, he can back the deal, which enshrines their rights.

Tom Pursglove: The Govern- ment’s commitment to the armed forces covenant is commendable, as is their focus on reducing reoffending.  Care after Combat is doing remarkable work in this area, and its veterans have a reoffending rate of 8% compared to a national average of 45% on leaving prison, saving the Government £20 million. Will my right hon. Friend therefore convene a cross-Government effort not only to shore up Care after Combat’s work, but to look to expand it nationally?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. I pay tribute to those who have served in our armed forces for their courage and commitment. I also pay tribute to the vital work undertaken by Care after Combat; my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. We have a range of measures in place to support those who have served in the armed forces who then find themselves in the criminal justice system, and prisons tailor rehabilitative work to individuals’ needs, helping to reduce the risk of reoffending when they are released from prison. The point that my hon. Friend makes about the excellent record of Care after Combat is a good one, and I am sure that a Minister from the Ministry of Justice will be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

Jeremy Corbyn: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Paddy Ashdown, who was elected to Parliament at the same time as me in 1983. He was a very assiduous constituency MP and a very effective Member of Parliament, and he and I spent a lot of evenings voting against what the Thatcher Tory Government were doing at that time.
I agree with the Prime Minister on the point that she made about the intimidation of Members of Parliament and representatives of the media outside this building, as happened a few days ago when the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and Owen Jones of The Guardian were intimidated outside this building. I send my support and sympathy to both of them. We also have to be clear that intimidation is wrong outside this building as it is wrong in any other aspect of life in this country, and we have to create a safe space for political debate. [Interruption.] You see what I mean, Mr Speaker; I am calling for a safe space for political debate.

John Bercow: Order. We have a long way to go. The questions will be heard and the answers will be heard. No amount of heckling or noise will make any difference to that simple fact.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing a speedy recovery to the two British soldiers who were injured in Syria last week.
The Prime Minister scrapped the Brexit vote last month, and promised that legally binding assurances would be secured at the December EU summit; she failed. She pledged to get these changes over the recess; she failed. Is the Prime Minister not bringing back exactly the same deal that she admitted would be defeated four weeks ago?

Theresa May: First, I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no place for intimidation in any part of our society. Politicians do need a safe space in which to express their opinions, many of which are passionately held. I hope that he will now ask his shadow Chancellor to withdraw or apologise for the   remarks that he made about the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey).
Let me update the House on the matter of Brexit. The conclusions of the December European Council went further than before in seeking to address the concerns of this House, and they have legal status. I have been in contact with European leaders since then about MPs’ concerns. These discussions have shown that further clarification on the backstop is possible, and those talks will continue over the next few days, but we are also looking at what more we can do domestically to safeguard the interests of the people and businesses of Northern Ireland. That is why this morning we published a package of commitments that give Northern Ireland a strong voice and role in any decision to bring the backstop into effect.
We have also been looking at how Parliament can take a greater role as we take these negotiations on to the next stage. So I can tell the House that, in the event that our future relationship or alternative arrangements are not ready by the end of 2020, Parliament will have a vote on whether to seek to extend the implementation period or to bring the backstop into effect. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will be saying more about this during his opening speech in the forthcoming debate.

Jeremy Corbyn: No amount of window-dressing is going to satisfy Members of this House. They want to see clear legal changes to the document that the Government presented to this House.
The Foreign Secretary said that the Prime Minister has not been asking for anything new in her discussions with the EU. Does not that tell us that the Prime Minister has been recklessly wasting time, holding the country to ransom with the threat of no deal in a desperate attempt to blackmail MPs to vote for her hopelessly unpopular deal?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman can say what he likes about no deal, but he opposes any deal that the Government have negotiated with the European Union. He opposes the deal—[Interruption.] He opposes the deal that the EU says is the only deal, and that leaves him with no deal. The only way to avoid no deal is to vote for the deal. If the right hon. Gentleman is uncertain about what I am saying, perhaps I can give him a tip—he might like to use a lipreader.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister says that it is the only deal available. If that is the case, why was it not put to a vote on 11 December in this House? Why has there been a delay of five weeks on this?
The Prime Minister said she hopes to get “written assurances” before the vote next week, so can I ask her this: will the changes she is looking for be made to the legally binding withdrawal agreement itself?

Theresa May: As I said earlier in my remarks and I have said previously, there are three elements that we are looking at. One is the undertakings and assurances that we are looking for from the European Union, and we intend that those will be available to the House before the House votes at the end of the debate. We are also looking at what more we can do domestically.  I have set out, and the Secretary of State will set out more clearly and in more detail, what we are going to do in relation to the powers for Northern Ireland and on the question of the role of Parliament for the future. We are also looking to ensure that we can provide the assurance and confidence that this House needs on the question of the backstop which has been at the forefront of Members’ concerns. We put a good deal on the table, but yes, we are looking for those clarifications—clarifications which I am sure will ensure that Members of this House know that the backstop need never be used and that if it is used it will be only temporary.

Jeremy Corbyn: Well, in the midst of that very long answer I did not hear the words “legal changes to the document”. That was my question.
The Environment Secretary has said that no deal would damage the UK farming sector. The Foreign Secretary has said that no deal
“is not something any government”
would
“wish on its people”,
and £4.2 billion of public money is being wastefully allocated to no-deal planning. Will the Prime Minister listen to the clearly expressed will of the House last night, end this costly charade, and rule out no deal?

Theresa May: I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants to avoid no deal, he has to back a deal, and back the deal. He stands there and complains about money being spent on no-deal preparations. Today, Wednesday, he is saying that we should not be spending money on no-deal preparations; on Monday, he said that no-deal preparations were “too little, too late.” He cannot have it both ways: either we are doing too much or we are doing too little. So perhaps he can break his usual habit and actually give us a decision—which is it?

Jeremy Corbyn: This is the first time since 1978 that a Prime Minister has been defeated on a Finance Bill in the House of Commons. Last night, the House made it clear, in supporting the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), that no deal should be ruled out. That is the position of this House.
The UK automotive industry wrote to the Prime Minister in December asking her to take the no-deal option
“off the table or risk destroying this vital UK industry.”
Given that this House has now rejected no deal, will the Prime Minister protect thousands of skilled jobs in the automotive industry and others and rule out no deal?

Theresa May: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman welcomed the leadership given by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford on that issue. I want to be clear that that amendment does not change the fact that the UK is leaving the European Union on 29 March, nor does it stop the Government collecting tax.
The right hon. Gentleman asks once again about the question of no deal and protecting jobs. We have negotiated a deal with the European Union that protects jobs. What is raising concerns, he says, is the prospect of  no deal. It is absolutely sensible for this Government to prepare for no deal, and those preparations are even more important given the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman. With an Opposition Front Bench team who are opposed to any deal the Government negotiate with the European Union, it is even more important that we prepare for no deal. The deal protects jobs and security and delivers on the referendum, and he should back it.

Jeremy Corbyn: Instead of backing industries in this country and protecting thousands of jobs in manufacturing and service industries, the Transport Secretary is awarding millions of pounds of contracts to ferry companies with no ferries, to run on routes that do not exist and apparently will not even be ready by the beginning of April. That is the degree of incompetence of this Government in dealing with the whole question of relations with the EU.
The Prime Minister has spent the last week begging for warm words from EU leaders and achieved nothing. Not one single dot or comma has changed. She has already squandered millions of pounds of public money on last-minute, half-baked planning for no deal, which was rejected last night. If her deal is defeated next week, as I hope and expect it will be, will the Prime Minister do the right thing—let the people have a real say and call a general election?

Theresa May: No. We have put a good deal on the table that protects jobs and security. I noticed in all of that that we still do not know what Brexit plan the right hon. Gentleman has. I was rather hoping, as he went through, that he might turn over a page and find a Brexit plan. What do we know about the right hon. Gentleman? He has been for and against free movement. He has been for and against the customs union. He has been for and against an independent trade policy. He was a Eurosceptic. Now he is pro the EU. He wanted to trigger article 50 on day one; now he wants to delay it. He did not want money spent on no deal; now he says it is not enough. The one thing we know about the right hon. Gentleman is that his Brexit policies are the many, not the few.

Andrew Selous: The NHS long-term plan is hugely welcome, particularly its recognition that GPs are the bedrock of the NHS. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that we do all we can to support GPs in staying in general practice, and that the education and training budget be urgently prioritised, to enable a wide range of healthcare professionals to support GPs in their practices?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point about GPs. If he looks at the long-term plan for the NHS, which was launched on Monday and is being made possible by the £20.5 billion extra that we will be putting into the NHS by 2023-24, he will see that support for the workforce, including GPs, is a very important part of that plan. Indeed, a greater focus on primary care, which will help to keep people out of hospital—at any point in time, 20% to 30% of people in hospital do not need to be there—is an important part of the plan. GPs are an essential element of that, and I assure my hon. Friend that they will be part of that important workforce planning.

Ian Blackford: I concur with the Prime Minister in her remarks on Paddy Ashdown. I make the point that all of us collectively have a responsibility to make sure that there is no intimidation in our public life.
The Prime Minister delayed the doomed Brexit vote last year on the promise of written concessions from Brussels. Prime Minister, where are they?

Theresa May: I set out the position in my first response to the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest the right hon. Gentleman should have listened to it.

Ian Blackford: We are used to not getting an answer, and there we have it again. What the Prime Minister promised was that we would get written concessions, and that Parliament would have the opportunity to vote on them; nothing has materialised. A month has passed, and nothing has changed.
Last night, the Prime Minister suffered another humiliating defeat. When will the Prime Minister face the facts? There is little support for her deal or no deal in this House. The new year began without concessions; the Dublin talks failed without concessions; the debate on her deal restarts today without concessions. The Prime Minister is frozen in failure, asking MPs to write a blank cheque for her blindfold Brexit. MPs should not be debating without the full facts. Is it this, or will there be the concessions, not just clarifications? When will the Prime Minister guarantee that the House will see the full details before we start the debate this afternoon?

Theresa May: As I said in response to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, I set out the position earlier. I referenced, as he will know, the conclusions of the December European Council, which went further in relation to the issues that I have raised with the European Council than they had gone before, and those have legal status, but we are of course working further on those issues.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that if he wants to avoid no deal, he has to be willing to agree a deal. The deal that is on the table, which the EU has made clear is the only deal, is the one that the United Kingdom Government have negotiated with the European Union. If he really wants, and is concerned about ensuring that we can look ahead to, a bright future across the whole of the United Kingdom, he should back that deal.

Employment: West Midlands

Michael Fabricant: What discussions she has had with the Mayor of the west midlands on the creation of employment in that region; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa May: I was pleased to meet the Mayor of the west midlands last October, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I visited the Kings Norton headquarters of adi Group and saw at first hand the opportunities that apprenticeships can afford. That is why we are seeing annual investment in apprenticeships double to nearly £2.5 billion by 2020. It was also an excellent opportunity to see a successful west midlands company doing its bit to give young people a career. I am pleased to say that the latest statistics show employment in the west midlands has risen by 276,000 since 2010.

Michael Fabricant: That is fantastic news, but I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that transport is also key to employment. I want to raise the question of the rail line that lies between Lichfield and Burton, which is currently used only for freight. It passes the National Memorial Arboretum, which gets about half a million visitors a year, but at the moment they all have to come by road, along the busy and congested A38. May I ask the Prime Minister that this rail line be upgraded to a passenger service, providing a valuable east-west connection from Birmingham? Would she also allow me to take her personally around the National Memorial Arboretum?

Theresa May: I of course recognise the important role that transport links play in relation to prosperity and economic growth. Our rail strategy, “Connecting people”, which we have published, actually does look at how we can restore lost capacity where that unlocks housing growth, eases crowded routes, meets demand and offers good value for money, of course. It is for local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to determine whether a new station or train service is the best way to meet local transport needs, but we work closely with local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to take forward the schemes that they are interested in progressing.
In relation to the arboretum, I will of course consider a visit in the future, and I think my hon. Friend has probably given me an invitation it is very difficult to refuse.

Engagements

Martyn Day: UK officials at Dover process 10,000 lorries every day from the EU, bringing in food, medicines and other goods. Has the UK Government’s experiment on Monday with 89 lorries in a Kent car park given the Prime Minister confidence in her Government’s ability to handle a no-deal Brexit?

Theresa May: The Government are doing exactly what it is necessary and sensible for a Government to do, which is to make preparations for no deal and ensure that we test those preparations. I come back to the point that if the hon. Gentleman is worried about the consequences of no deal, he should back the deal.

Kenneth Clarke: It seems plain to anyone who has listened to most of the debates in this House that there is no majority for any proposition on our future relationship with the European Union in this House of Commons, except the majority that is clearly against leaving with no deal. I propose to vote for the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, but I doubt it will pass. If it is passed and we get into a transition, there is no majority or consensus on what the Government are supposed to negotiate for in the years that follow to settle our future political and economic relationships with Europe. The Prime Minister has to be flexible on some things, so if she loses the debate next Tuesday, will she consider moving to the obvious step in the national interest of delaying or revoking article 50, so that we have time to consider what the British actually want?

Theresa May: My right hon. and learned Friend referenced the withdrawal agreement and said that there was no position on what the future relationship should be. Of course, the framework for that future relationship, which is in greater detail than many had expected, is set out in the political declaration, which gives the instructions to the negotiators for the future. In that circumstance, it is right that we consider the role that Parliament will play as the negotiations go forward to ensure that we get the future relationship right. I believe it is possible to have a future relationship with the European Union that is deep and close, but that gives us the freedom to do what we want to do, which is to have an independent trade policy and to develop trade agreements and trade arrangements with the rest of the world.

John Spellar: I welcome the crackdown on cold-calling to fleece pensioners out of their hard-earned pension pots, but is that not just dealing with the symptoms, rather than the underlying cause, which is the ill-judged free-for-all pension changes introduced by the Prime Minister’s friend, the previous Chancellor George Osborne, which gave the green light to the shysters and the spivs? What is she going to do about that?

Theresa May: The changes introduced by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer gave pensioners more flexibility and freedom in relation to how to use their own money.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: Every Member of this House knows that drivers and commuters want greater investment to repair our roads and upgrade our railway services, yet we are wasting money on a deeply unpopular project, where the management has failed and the costs are out of control. It will end up costing the taxpayer more than £100 billion —that is about £300 million per mile of track. Why can we not face up to reality, Prime Minister, cancel HS2 and spend the money on the people’s priorities for transport, rather than on this overpriced project that will never deliver value for money for the taxpayer?

Theresa May: First of all, we recognise the concerns that people have about roads, particularly issues such as potholes in their roads, which is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made more money available to address those issues.
On the question of HS2, it is not just about a high-speed railway; it is about ensuring that we have the capacity that is needed on this particular route, because we are already reaching capacity on the west coast main line. We are already seeing HS2 spreading prosperity. It is encouraging investment and rebalancing our economy, and that is 10 years before the railway even opens. We have seen 7,000 jobs created across the UK, and 2,000 businesses across the UK are delivering HS2. It will bring tens of billions of pounds’-worth of benefits to passengers, suppliers and local communities up and down the route.

Edward Davey: I thank the Prime Minister for her words about Lord Ashdown, our friend Paddy. Paddy was loved on these Benches, and I believe he was respected across the House and across the country. We will miss him deeply.
An unusual thing happened last night: Conservative MPs and Opposition MPs united, and leavers and remainers united. They united to back my proposal for a review of retrospection in a law called the loan charge, which offends against the rule of law and has caused misery to tens of thousands of people. In her role as First Lord of the Treasury, will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and a cross-party delegation of MPs to discuss the new review of the loan charge?

Theresa May: First of all, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: the late Lord Ashdown was deeply respected across this House, across Parliament as a whole and widely across the country. On the question he puts about the review of the loan charge—[Interruption.] I get the point he was trying to make, but may I just make this point? He talked about Opposition and Government MPs uniting. Actually, the Government accepted his review into the loan charge. I think the first stage might be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sit down with him and a group of cross-party MPs to look at how that review is being taken forward.

Iain Duncan Smith: Mr Speaker, I am not going to ask about Brexit. You may be pleased about that. [Interruption.] And happy new year to all of you as well.
I recently had the immense privilege of shadowing Dr Imran Zia at our accident and emergency department at Whipps Cross University Hospital. It was a humbling experience to witness the dedication and fantastic skill of our doctors and nurses. However, they work in buildings that are now well over 100 years old and they know they need better facilities. I have to say to my right hon. Friend that while the NHS set the development of Whipps as the top north-east London priority, in December it announced programmes for investment across London, and yet again north-east London was not included. Will my right hon. Friend please visit Whipps Cross Hospital to see how important and vital it is to the area? Will she work with our excellent Health Secretary, on the basis of a fantastic announcement on Monday, to invest in those buildings and facilities?

Theresa May: I will certainly look at the possibility of taking my right hon. Friend up on that invitation. He makes an important point about the announcement we made on Monday. Our right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has heard what he says about the particular requirements at Whipps Cross Hospital, and will be happy to sit down and talk with him in more detail about that. I will certainly look at my diary and look at his invitation.

Layla Moran: I would like to add mention of my own sadness at the passing of Paddy. In his final weeks, he was very concerned about the way that Brexit would play into Britain’s place in the world.

Andrew Bridgen: From the grave.

Shame!

Layla Moran: Brexit, for example, is clearly in Russia’s geopolitical interest. It was chilling to hear Vladimir Putin parroting exactly the words of the Prime Minister on why we should not hold a referendum but instead
“fulfil the will of the people”.
Meanwhile, poll after poll shows there is a majority for a referendum, because people can see that the Prime Minister’s flailing deal is not in our national interest. So whose side is this Prime Minister on: Putin’s or the people’s?

Theresa May: I am on the side of the people, to whom this Parliament gave a vote on the decision as to whether to stay in the European Union. We will be delivering on and respecting the result of that referendum, and delivering on Brexit.

Maggie Throup: I am delighted that we have been able to deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an energy price cap. Will my right hon. Friend outline how that price cap will benefit my constituents across Erewash?

Theresa May: The fact that the energy price cap has now come in is a very important step that this Government have taken. Something like 11 million households will benefit from the price cap. Households will save money as a result of what this Government have done. We recognise the concern people had about energy prices. It is this Government who have acted to deliver, and my hon. Friend’s constituents in Erewash will see a benefit as a result.

Gill Furniss: Many of my constituents are employed in the Sheffield steel sector—a beacon of innovation and manufacturing. UK Steel, the body representing steel companies, has been clear that a no deal would be nothing short of a disaster for the sector. Will the Prime Minister confirm that she will not be so irresponsible as to consider the option of a no deal, and reassure my constituents, who are worried about their jobs and their future?

Theresa May: I absolutely respect and recognise the role that the steel industry plays in the United Kingdom. Over recent years, the Government have taken steps to support the steel industry. The hon. Lady talks about the issue of whether we should leave the European Union without a deal. I have been working to ensure that we have a good deal when we leave the European Union. That is the deal that is on the table, and anybody who does not want no deal has to accept that the way to ensure that there is not no deal is to accept and vote for the deal.

Huw Merriman: On Tuesday I shall vote for the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, but may I ask the Prime Minister to consider one particular aspect, for which I must declare a rather rash—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The question from the hon. Gentleman must be heard. As I scarcely heard what he said, I think he should start again—[Interruption.] Yes, he should start again and deliver it in full.

Huw Merriman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am wearing my Arsenal tie, and unfortunately those on the terraces here are not quite as well behaved as those at the Emirates.
As I was saying, on Tuesday I will vote for the Prime Minister’s deal. I would like her to look at one particular aspect, for which I have to declare a rather rash  financial interest. It relates to page 33 of the withdrawal agreement. Citizens’ residency can be provided either for free by the UK Government or for an amount commensurate with existing costs. At a Brexit meeting in Bexhill, I was so confident that the Government would provide it for free that, rather foolishly, I offered to pay the charge for one particular European citizen who was not quite as confident. Given that this was a decision by the UK public, surely we should welcome our friends, neighbours and essential workforce from the EU, and offer citizens’ residency free of charge, so that they can stay in this country at our cost.

Theresa May: Obviously, I recognise the concern raised by my hon. Friend. The £65 fee to apply for status under the scheme is in line with the current cost of obtaining permanent residence documentation, and it will, of course, contribute to the overall costs of the system, but applications will be free of charge for those who hold valid permanent residence documentation or valid indefinite leave to enter or remain, and for children being looked after by a local authority. Where an application is granted pre-settled status under the scheme, there will, from April 2019, be no fee for applying for settled status. As I said in an earlier response to another Member, the EU settlement scheme will make it simple and straightforward for people to get the status that they need.

Stephen Kinnock: This week, our cross-party Norway Plus group published “Common Market 2.0”, a clear plan that respects the 52:48 mandate, addresses concerns about free movement, protects jobs in my Aberavon constituency, and helps to reunite our deeply divided country. If the Prime Minister’s deal is rejected on Tuesday, will she give the House the opportunity to vote on a range of options, including “Common Market 2.0”, and will she give Members on her Benches a free vote on those options?

Theresa May: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am working to ensure that the deal that has been negotiated by the UK Government with the European Union is voted on positively by this Parliament. It is a good deal. It does what he wants: it protects jobs and security. It also delivers in full on the referendum result, which is a key issue. We owe it to people to deliver what they wanted, which was control of money, borders and laws, and that is what the deal does.

Jack Lopresti: I thank my right hon. Friend for ensuring that our manifesto commitment to scrap tolls on the Severn bridge crossings has been met. That will put £1,400 a year into the pockets of thousands of motorists, many of whom are my constituents. Does she agree that will help transform the economies of the south-west and south Wales?

Theresa May: This is an important step that the Government have taken. It was advocated by individual Members and the Secretary of State for Wales, and I believe it will indeed have a very positive economic effect on Wales, on the south-west and on constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s.

Clive Betts: The Local Government Association has produced figures showing that councils of all political persuasions overspent  their children’s services budgets by £800 million last year. The figure for Sheffield was £12 million. That is totally due to the fact that the number of children in care has risen to a 10-year high. In the light of that pressure, does the Prime Minister accept that the £84 million over five years offered by the Chancellor in the Budget is totally inadequate? Without extra funding, either these vulnerable children will not get the care they need, or other important services, such as parks and libraries, will get further cuts at a time the Prime Minister has told us that austerity has come to an end.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman quoted £84 million. That was actually for a pilot, which is about keeping more children at home with their families safely. We announced an extra £410 million overall at the Budget for social care, which includes children, and spending on the most vulnerable children has increased by more than £1.5 billion since 2010. We are also taking a number of other steps, such as the work we are doing to increase the number of children’s social workers, the appointment of a chief social worker for children, introducing Frontline and Step Up, and getting quality candidates into social care careers. Those are important steps. The hon. Gentleman talks about money; actually, it is about ensuring that the service that is provided is the right one. That is why we do it across the board, and that is why we are looking at those issues around social workers.

David Amess: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Ever since former President Gayoom introduced democracy to the Maldives, its legitimacy has been challenged. Just like we have seen with the prophets of doom around Brexit, the recent elections went ahead with no violence and President Solih was elected with a great majority. Will my right hon. Friend redouble her efforts to increase trade, education and cultural links?

Theresa May: I can tell my hon. Friend what I hope is news that he will welcome, which is that a new embassy is being opened in the Maldives. As we look around the world in relation to trade, we will of course see what we can do to improve our trade with a number of countries.

Pete Wishart: Parliamentary defeats are now a regular feature of the Prime Minister’s Government. She has lost a quarter of her Cabinet, and 117 of her Back Benchers want her gone. Her deal is as dead as the deadest dodo. How many more indignities can this Prime Minister endure before she realises that she is the biggest part of the problem? For goodness’ sake, just go!

Theresa May: The UK Government have negotiated a deal with the European Union that delivers on the referendum result. I know the hon. Gentleman does not want to deliver on the referendum result. He wants to ensure that the UK stays inside the European Union, at the same time—talking about the economy—as he supports taking Scotland out of the Union of the United Kingdom, which is much more important economically for the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland know that remaining in the United Kingdom is their best future.

Anne Main: Volunteering services are enormously important, and none more so than the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, who put their lives at risk and often rescue people who make perilous crossings to try to get into this country. Is it not time that we looked at the RNLI’s funding? Many people think it is funded by the Government, and it is time we gave some money towards it.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the vital role that the RNLI plays. As she says, many people do not realise that it is funded entirely by voluntary contributions. I pay tribute to all those across the country who raise funds for the RNLI, including, if she will allow me, the Sonning branch in my constituency.

Rachael Maskell: York has been in shock as we have learned that 11 homeless people in our city died last year. While we know that this is an issue across the nation, we also know that substance misuse services have been cut, that social housing has not been built in our city, and that mental health services are desperately underfunded and understaffed.
Prime Minister, I do not want to hear what you have done, because it has clearly failed. I want to know what you are going to do differently, so that no homeless person dies this year.

Theresa May: Every death of someone while homeless or sleeping rough on our streets is one death too many, which is why we have made a commitment to end rough sleeping by 2027 and halve it by 2022. The hon. Lady says that she does not want to know what we have done, but we have committed more than £1.2 billion to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping. She mentioned mental health services, and asked what we would do in the future. What we will be doing in the future is putting an extra £2.3 billion into mental health services, to ensure that we provide them for the people who, sadly, are not currently able to access them.

Paul Scully: More Londoners voted to leave the EU than voted for the current Mayor of London, who is swanning around Europe talking about Brexit rather than his responsibilities, such as crime, housing and transport. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he insists on being a Brexit diva, he should concentrate on telling his side to vote for this deal—[Interruption.]

Theresa May: I absolutely agree. What the Mayor of London should be doing is looking at what delivers on the overall vote of the people of London—the vote to which my hon. Friend referred—and at what delivers in a way that protects the best interests of Londoners, and that is to vote for this deal.

Meg Hillier: The Prime Minister has had 20 dancing rebels, has promised five golden trade agreements and has had one big defeat, and yet she still cannot find her withdrawal agreement. Has she checked her pear tree?

Theresa May: It was a good attempt, but Christmas happened a couple of weeks ago.

Julian Lewis: According to that invaluable website TheyWorkForYou, the Prime Minister has assured the House on no fewer than 74 previous occasions that we will be leaving the EU on 29 March. Will she categorically confirm today that there is absolutely no question at all of delaying that date?

Theresa May: I am happy to repeat what I have said previously—that we will be leaving the European Union on 29 March. I want us to leave the European Union on 29 March with the good deal that is on the table.

Emma Lewell-Buck: My constituents Sarah and Chris Cookson lost their little boy Charlie in 2013. Since then, they have devoted their lives to helping other families and children with life-limiting conditions via their charity, the Charlie Cookson Foundation. On Boxing Day, Sarah gave birth to Carter John Cookson. He had three cardiac arrests in one day. After an unsuccessful operation, he is now fighting for his life, in need of a heart transplant. Carter has been given only a matter of  weeks to live. Will the Prime Minister join me today in raising awareness to help us to find a heart for little baby Carter?

Theresa May: Let me first join the hon. Lady in commending the work that the Cooksons have done with the Charlie Cookson Foundation in raising funds for children and babies with life-threatening conditions. I am sure that the sympathies of the whole House are with the family at this very, very difficult time. The hon. Lady has outlined some of the specifics of the case, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister at the Department of Health and Social Care meets her to discuss the issue further.
We do want to change the culture on organ donation in order to save more lives. That is why we are planning to introduce a new opt-out system in England in 2020. The new law will be known as Max and Keira’s law, in honour of Max Johnson, who received a heart from Keira Ball, and Keira, who sadly lost her life in a car accident. However, the hon. Lady has outlined a tragic case, and I will ensure that a Minister from the Department speaks with her about it.

Points of Order

Layla Moran: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you are aware, at the beginning of Prime Minister’s questions when I was expressing my deep sadness at the loss of Lord Ashdown and his concern for the state of where we are now, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) loudly shouted from a sedentary position, “From the grave.” I find such a comment disgraceful, and I ask for guidance on how the hon. Gentleman might, for example, retract such a statement and on whether it was becoming of the sort of conduct that we should expect from Members of this House.

John Bercow: I did hear those words. I did not hear a particular Member, and I did not see a Member mouth those words, but I did hear those words. I think it was most unfortunate that that was said. People sometimes say things instinctively and rashly, but it was most unfortunate. The hon. Lady was perfectly properly paying tribute to an extremely distinguished former Member of this House and someone that many would regard as an international statesperson. What was said should not have been said. If the person who said it wishes to take the opportunity to apologise, it is open to that person to do so.

Andrew Bridgen: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will apologise for my remarks if any offence was caused to any Member of the House.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman’s words stand, and I thank him for what he has said.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I have always regarded you as an exceptional Speaker and a defender of Parliament, which I continue to do. However, I also regard the Clerks of the House in exactly the same light. I went to the Table Office late last night to look at the Business of the House (Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) (No. 2) (Motion) to see what shenanigans the Government were up to. It had been published, and I thought of proposing an amendment, but I was told that that would be totally out of order and that no other amendments had been tabled. However, there is an amendment to that motion on the Order Paper today, which puts me in something of an unfortunate position, so could you rule on what action might be taken?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. First, let me thank him for his kind remarks that prefaced his inquiry. This is the first that I have learned of the matter, and that makes it difficult for me to give immediate advice. It is a matter upon which I may need to reflect before giving him what I would call substantive advice.
Obviously, I was not aware of the hon. Gentleman’s visit to the Table Office, of which he has now informed me. I understand that he is telling me that he was advised that the motion was unamendable, and I do not know whether he went into the Table Office before the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield  (Mr Grieve) or after. All I know is that in my understanding the motion is amendable—I am clear in my mind about that—so insofar as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is disappointed that he was unable to table an amendment, I understand that. Whether there is an opportunity for him to do so now seems doubtful. I would have had no objection to him seeking to table an amendment, but I was unaware that he was attempting to do so. That is my honest answer to him. I absolutely accept that he is a person of complete integrity and will always try to do the right thing, and the same goes for me. I am trying to do the right thing and to make the right judgments. That is what I have tried to do and will go on doing.

Eddie Hughes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope you will bear with me because, as a relatively new Member who has never raised a point of order before, there may be some inaccuracy in the process. Given the comments that you have just made, I wonder whether you could point me towards the precedent that would allow for what seems to be an unamendable motion to be amended.

John Bercow: I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not in the business of invoking precedent, nor am I under any obligation to do so. I think the hon. Gentleman will know that it is the long-established practice of this House that the Speaker in the Chair makes judgments upon the selection of amendments and that those judgments are not questioned by Members of the House. I am clear in my mind that I have taken the right course of action.
By way of explanation to the hon. Gentleman and to the House, the motion in the Prime Minister’s name is indeed a variation of the order agreed by the House on 4 December. Under paragraph (9) of that order, the question on any motion to vary the order “shall be put forthwith.” I interpret that to mean that there can be no debate, but I must advise the House that the terms of the order do not say that no amendment can be selected or moved. I cannot allow debate, but I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. At the appropriate point, I will invite him to move it once the motion has been moved. That is the position.

Mark Francois: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the convenience of the House, I have brought with me a copy of the original business motion, which was passed by this House on 4 December 2018, and paragraph (9) states:
“No motion to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.”
That was a motion of the House.
Now, I have not been in this House as long as you have, Mr Speaker, but I have been here for 18 years and I have never known any Speaker to overrule a motion of the House of Commons. You have said again and again that you are a servant of this House, and we take you at your word. When people have challenged you in points of order, I have heard you say many times, “I cannot do x or y because I am bound by a motion of the House.” You have done that multiple times in my experience, so why are you overriding a motion of the House today?

John Bercow: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy. The answer is simple. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a motion and said that no motion in this context, for the purposes of precis, may be moved other than by a Minister of the Crown. ‘Tis so. We are not treating here of a motion but of an amendment to a motion.

Mark Francois: That’s ridiculous.

John Bercow: I am sorry, but there is a distinction between a motion and an amendment. What the right hon. Gentleman says about a motion I accept, but it does not relate to an amendment. That is the answer.

Mark Francois: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: No, there is no further.

Mark Francois: I am sorry, but that is utter sophistry.

Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In recent years—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The Father of the House is on his feet; let us hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Kenneth Clarke: In my opinion, in recent years this House has seen a considerable diminution of its powers and has often seemed rather indifferent to the eroding of some of the powers we used to have to hold Governments to account. You, Mr Speaker, have been assiduous in maximising the opportunities for the House to hold what happens to be the Government of the day to account and in giving the opportunity for debate and for voting. I find it unbelievable that people are putting such effort into trying to exclude the possibility of the House expressing its opinion on how it wishes to handle this matter, and I suggest to some of my hon. Friends—the ones who are getting somewhat overexcited—that perhaps they should don a yellow jacket and go outside.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Of course I will come back to other colleagues. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order, which I think requires no response from me; it stands on its own.

Chris Leslie: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are in an invidious position: you have an extremely difficult job to do, but can you confirm in relation to your rulings—whichever way they go; sometimes we will agree, and sometimes we will disagree—that it would not be in order for you simply to respond to the loudest voice at a particular point of time, or in any way to be pushed by a minority view because some are acting in a co-ordinated way to attempt to overrule your rulings?

John Bercow: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and he will not be surprised to know that I share his judgment in the matter. For the avoidance of doubt and the understanding of people who are not Members of the House but are attending to our proceedings, and are possibly even present in the Palace of Westminster today, let me say this so that it is crystal clear from the  vantage point of the Chair: what the Chair is proposing to do is select an amendment because in my honest judgment it is a legitimate selection. It is for the House to vote upon—[Interruption.] Order. It is for the House to vote upon that amendment, and indeed to vote upon the motion. The Chair is simply seeking to discharge the responsibility of the holder of the office to the best of his ability. That is what I have always done, and no matter what people say or how forcefully they say it, or how many times they say it or by what manner of co-ordination it is said, I will continue to do what I believe to be right.

Bill Cash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that no amendment to the European withdrawal motion can have any legislative effect and therefore cannot override the express repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 in any shape or form, which was passed under section 1 of the withdrawal Act by this House and by Parliament on 26 June this year?

John Bercow: The short answer is yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is right: only statute can overrule statute. As usual the hon. Gentleman’s exegesis of the situation is entirely correct. [Interruption.] Somebody chuntered from a sedentary position, “Not as usual”; well, that was my evaluative comment on the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) based on long experience of him, and on this particular point I absolutely accept that he is right.

Alison McGovern: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have often drawn our attention not just to what goes on within the House but the view the public might take of the priorities we hold, so may I ask you to confirm what I believe you just said: if people do not like the amendment you have selected, the simple answer is to vote against it?

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Yes. A point of order now from Sir Bernard Jenkin.

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask you to rule on a different matter, regarding Standing Order No. 118 on how delegated legislation is dealt with in this House, which states at paragraph (6):
“The Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon”
after orders have been debated upstairs and brought to the Floor of the House? That has always been thought and understood to mean that these motions are unamendable: “forthwith” means unamendable. Why have you changed your interpretation of that word in this case?

John Bercow: My understanding is that the motion today, and the amendment, are undebatable: there is to be no debate on them. I have not made, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, a change of judgment specifically for today. I understand what the hon. Gentleman tells me in respect of the traditional treatment of delegated legislation, upon which he may himself be a considerable authority. I think it reasonable to say by way of response  that I cannot be expected to make a comprehensive judgment on that related question now, but I stand by the view I have expressed to the House. I completely respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman takes a view that differs from my own, but that is in the nature of debate and argument.

Stephen Doughty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government have a track record on this: they have a track record of trying to prevent this House from having its say over all aspects of the Brexit process, and what the public cannot see is the Chief Whip sitting there at the end of the Treasury Bench feverishly briefing journalists and texting Members in a co-ordinated attempt to undermine your judgment, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is raising a point of order and he is entitled to be heard, and he will be heard.

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Member for Wellingborough made a reasonable point about going into the Table Office and being able to table an amendment. Is there not a problem here, Mr Speaker, as the fact is that the Government have had four weeks to get this right, but did not table the Business of the House motion until well gone 6 o’clock last night? Indeed, Members of this House were sitting in a meeting with the Prime Minister and Chief Whip and there was complete confusion about whether the Business of the House motion had gone down; there was a deliberate attempt to prevent amendments from being tabled and the House knowing what was going on. Do you agree that that is not acceptable, Mr Speaker?

John Bercow: My understanding is that the Business of the House motion was tabled yesterday afternoon by the Government; I confess I do not know at precisely what time, but my recollection and understanding are that it was tabled yesterday afternoon. It is for Members to judge in the light of the chronology of events of recent weeks whether that was altogether helpful. Clearly the Government Chief Whip will do what he judges to be right on behalf of his Prime Minister and his Government; I acknowledge that. Whether Members elsewhere in the House found it particularly helpful is perhaps an essay question which I leave to others.

Heidi Allen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to tell you that I am absolutely hopping mad. When I became an MP three years ago I was determined that I would not become part of the establishment. Do people in this House have any idea how out of touch the general public think we are most days? We are talking about 79 days to potentially crashing out of Europe without a deal; our focus should not be on the detail of, and arguments about, the process in this place; it should be about getting on with a plan B if Parliament decides next week that the Government’s plan is not the one for the people. When are we are going to start acting like public servants and doing the right thing and having the debate and getting on with it?

John Bercow: I have the highest respect for the hon. Lady, as she knows. I take on board what she says and I do not dissent from it. Equally, however, if Members raise points of order it is my responsibility to deal with them as fairly and effectively as I can. Clearly there will, I think, be a desire at some stage to proceed to the substance of the matters with which we are supposed to be dealing, but if there are further points of order, of course I will hear them and do my best to respond.

Vicky Ford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my previous job in the European Parliament I often found that I was being asked to vote on amendments that had not been debated, and one of the things I really like about this House is that, before we vote on amendments, we get a chance to debate them. Can you confirm that, if this amendment is put to a vote today, we will have had a chance to debate it?

John Bercow: No, for the very simple reason that the terms for today, specified by the Government Chief Whip, specify no debate. If the hon. Lady asks me whether there will be a debate, the honest answer is no, but that is not my fault.

Andrea Leadsom: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will appreciate that there are Members around the House who have concerns about your decision today. I think it would be very helpful to the House if you could confirm that your decision was taken with the full advice and agreement of the Clerk of the House of Commons and, perhaps to help the House, you might agree to publish that advice so that the House can understand the reasons for your decision. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Forgive me, colleagues, but I want to hear the right hon. Lady’s point of order.  I heard the start of it, but I did not hear its continuation, so please let us hear it.

Andrea Leadsom: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you will have heard today, there are some concerns about the decision you have taken in the context of the Business of the House motion. Could you therefore please confirm that your decision was taken with full advice from the Clerk of the House of Commons and other senior parliamentary advisers and whether, under these circumstances, you might consider publishing that advice?

Publish it.

John Bercow: Order. I thank the Leader of the House for her point of order, and what I say to her is twofold. First, of course I consult the Clerk of the House and other senior Clerks, and I hear their advice. That advice is tendered to me privately, and that is absolutely proper, but it is also true that I had a written note from the Clerk of the House, from which I quoted in responding to an earlier point of order.
If the right hon. Lady is inquiring whether there is what she might consider to be, in governmental terms, full written advice, a paper or a written brief, or whatever, there is none such. I have just told her what the situation is, I quoted from what was provided to me by the  Clerk of the House and I have given my ruling. That is the situation.

Andrea Leadsom: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your reply. My question really is, did the Clerk of the House of Commons propose that your solution is acceptable, or did the Clerk advise against it?

John Bercow: The answer is that I have discussed the matter with the Clerk of the House. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Order. The Clerk offered me advice, and we talked about the situation that faces the House today. At the end of our discussion, when I had concluded as I did, he undertook to advise me further in the treatment of this matter—that seems to me to be entirely proper. That is the situation, and I think that is what colleagues would expect.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just before I begin, I wish Michel Barnier a happy 68th birthday today. The contention in which this amendment is held is surely all the justification required for Members to vote on it and to decide one way or the other, and you are correct in what you are doing.

John Bercow: Thank you.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

John Bercow: On account of his seniority I will take a further point of order from the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will not push his luck.

Iain Duncan Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I respect the Chair and I would never push my luck with you. I do not challenge the decision by any means, and it is your right to make it from the Chair, but over the past 24 or 25 years I have on a number of occasions, particularly during the Maastricht debates, asked the Clerks whether we could amend a Business of the House motion. I was always told categorically that precedent says it is not possible and, therefore, there was no point seeking to do so—I say that only as a statement.
Because this has a big impact on the Government’s ability to get their business, regardless of Brexit, will the instruction go to the Clerks that, in future, a Back Bencher wishing to amend a “forthwith” motion will now have such an amendment allowed and accepted against any business in the House?

John Bercow: It seems entirely reasonable for me to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I would like to reflect on that matter. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Order. Members cavil as though there is an assumption that there should be immediate and comprehensive knowledge of all circumstances that might subsequently unfold. It may be that there are Members who feel they possess such great wisdom and, if so, I congratulate them upon the fact. I do not claim that wisdom, so I am giving what I absolutely admit is a holding answer to the right hon. Gentleman. I will reflect on the point, but if he is asking whether I think it is unreasonable that people might seek to amend a Business of the House motion, I do not think it is unreasonable. If, in future, Back Benchers were to seek to do so, it would seem sensible to me to say, “Let us look at the merits of the case.”
Finally, in attempting to respond not only to the right hon. Gentleman but to some of the concerns that have been expressed, I understand the importance of precedent, but precedent does not completely bind, for one very simple reason. [Interruption.] I say this for the benefit of the Leader of the House, who is shaking her head. If we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change. Things do change. I have made an honest judgment. If people want to vote against the amendment, they can; and if they want to vote for it, they can.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I remind the House that, further to what you have just said, it was because of your courage in allowing an amendment to a Loyal Address, which enabled a referendum test to be applied in this House, that we had the referendum in due course and we are where we are? Let nobody suggest that you, by your actions, have been undermining Brexit. It would seem to me to be an absolute own goal for this House if we started undermining your position in the Chair. As an independently-minded Government Back Bencher, I strongly resent the fact that the Government pairing Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is on the right-hand side of your Chair, has been trying to orchestrate objections to your decision.

John Bercow: Let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. So far as his last remark was concerned, I think I can cope with that. Government Whips going about their business in their own way is something to which the Chair is very well and long accustomed. The notion that a Government Whip might now and again do things that are unhelpful to the Chair is not entirely novel. I have broad shoulders and I am not going to lose any sleep over that—never have done, am not doing so and never will.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy and his sense of fairness. He recalls the record accurately: I did indeed select an additional amendment to the Humble Address, if memory services me correctly, in 2013, and that was in the name of Mr John Baron. That amendment was on the subject of a referendum on British membership of the European Union, so what the hon. Gentleman says is true.
The fact is that there is a responsibility on the Chair to do their best to stand up for the rights of the House of Commons, including the views of dissenters on the Government Benches—that is to say, independent-minded souls who do not always go with the Whip—and to defend the rights of Opposition parties and very small parties, as well. I have always sought to do that, and on the Brexit issue, as on every issue, what the record shows, if I may say so—and I will—is that this Chair, on a very, very, very big scale, calls Members from across the House with a very large variety of opinions. Ordinarily, as colleagues will acknowledge, when statements are made to the House, my practice, almost invariably, is to call each and every Member, whether the Government like it or not. That is not because I am setting myself up against the Government, but because I am championing the rights of the House of Commons.

Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you agree that over the past few years we have seen a big evolution in the way the  Government treat motions in this House? That was partly brought about by the Wright reforms, but we have seen the widespread ignoring of motions passed in this House, and the beginning of a practice of not voting on motions—especially Opposition motions—that the Government feel are somehow awkward for them. Do you agree, Mr Speaker, that this has taken away from the importance of the decisions that this House of Commons makes? Do you therefore also agree that allowing this House of Commons to vote on more issues, in a context in which those votes have to be taken and put into effect, empowers this House of Commons and demonstrates that it is taking back control? As Speaker, you have an absolute duty to ensure that this House of Commons is taken seriously, which is why I commend you for the decision you have taken today.

John Bercow: Rather than deal in detail with what the hon. Lady has said, I will say that I agree with her assessment of recent events, and of course I thank her for agreeing with me.

Simon Hoare: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The advice of the Clerks is entirely properly between you and the Clerks—that is an accepted principle—but if this place is to operate properly and effectively, it has to be on an established, rules-based system, as referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). May I ask you, Sir, to reflect on two things? First, if there is to be what one would consider to be a fairly seismic change in the definition of terms in this place, the role of the Procedure Committee in that should be taken into account. Secondly, I say this to you personally, Mr Speaker. We need to reflect in this place not on the personalities or the politics, but on the dignity of the office of Speaker and the dignity of the Chair. I think we are—I say this with sadness—in pretty choppy and dangerous waters at the time in our nation’s affairs when, frankly, we can least afford it.

John Bercow: I am extraordinarily grateful for the point of order from the hon. Gentleman; I know he is deeply versed in the affairs of the House and takes his responsibilities to it very seriously indeed. I shall reflect most carefully on every word of what he has said to me today. I agree that there could well be a role for the Procedure Committee in relation to this matter, and thank him for what he has said.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I will come to other colleagues, if that is what colleagues wish.

Hilary Benn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the crisis that the country is facing over Brexit, the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has just said, the House of Commons is taking back control is to be welcomed, rather than feared. Mr Speaker, you have made your ruling; it is clear; the House should respect it. I wonder whether you could advise us on how we could now move on to the business of the day, to which I think the nation expects us to turn our attention.

John Bercow: The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that I am in the hands of colleagues, and I think he knows me well enough to know that I have   never ducked a challenge. That is not in my nature; it has been no part of my DNA, either since I have been in this House or in all my life before I came into Parliament. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) says from a sedentary position words to the effect of “Let’s get on.” I would like to move on, but I do wish to treat colleagues with courtesy. [Interruption.] Somebody said “You can,” but I will take a few remaining points of order if people wish to raise them. I say very gently to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who just raised his point of order and talked about the dignity of the Chair and the importance of our procedures, that if people are going to invoke that importance, it would be helpful if they did not undermine that self-same point by continuous and repetitive dispute.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points on which I would be grateful for clarity. First, section 9 of the order of the House that sets out the terms of the debate says that no motion may be made other than by a Minister of the Crown, and you have interpreted that to mean that an amendment can be made to the motion. The question on that motion, as amended, then has to be put, and that is the motion that, under the order, needs to be moved by a Minister of the Crown. Is it therefore the case that the question may not be put on the motion, if amended, unless the motion is adopted by a Minister of the Crown?
I then have a second point. [Interruption.] If I may come to the second point, which is the precedential—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s first point and I would like to hear his second.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The second point relates to the interpretation of the word “forthwith” and, for the benefit of the Commons Journal tomorrow, how it is  to be understood in future when such matters arise. Page 458 of “Erskine May”, which I am sure you have, Mr Speaker, says that such questions
“must be put forthwith without any possibility of amendment”.
That reads as a single set, rather than as though “forthwith” was simply being qualified. The question that then arises is on the other important Standing Orders that are affected by the “forthwith” question. I think particularly of Standing Order No. 44, relating to disorderly conduct, which states that the question must be put forthwith but makes no mention of amendment one way or another. It seems to me that it would be deeply troublesome if “forthwith” came to allow amendments under such circumstances, so I think that the precedential effect of your ruling needs to be clarified.

John Bercow: I am happy to reflect on the second point, which is not altogether dissimilar to that raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). It is a very serious question and it warrants a serious reply. I am not sure whether it is reasonable to expect a full reply today—I am not sure whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is seeking—but if the hon. Gentleman is saying to me in his typically courteous way that this is an important matter and that we need a judgment on it,  either from the Chair alone or from the Chair acting on the advice of, for example, the Procedure Committee, I agree with him.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the answer is that if the motion has been moved, the question on it must then be put. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that on the basis of specialist advice.

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point is equally important constitutionally. Are there any means available to this House of communicating to the Conservative party that we are all now bored and tired of all these points of order? The nation is increasingly embarrassed by them. How do we therefore get on with today’s debate?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I am grateful to him.

Kevin Foster: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I must say that I never bore of the proceedings of this House and of doing my job, even if others do. A few moments ago, you said that only statute can overrule statute. The section of the Act to which this motion relates specified a period of 21 calendar days for the Government to come back. This motion specifies three sitting days. Which one has precedence and why did you select this amendment?

John Bercow: I have already explained the situation that appertains to the amendment. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but if, after all these exchanges, he is still not clear about my rationale for the selection of the amendment, I am not sure, frankly, whether I can greatly help him. I think I am right in saying that the reference to 21 days, as I have just been advised from a sedentary position by the Clerk of the House, is a 21-day maximum. When the hon. Gentleman enquires about supremacy—which of the two takes precedence—I simply make the point that that which is governed by statute is a matter of legal fact. Earlier in this series of exchanges, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) asked me to confirm his legal understanding, and I did. That seems to me to treat of the point that concerns the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster).

Luciana Berger: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There will be times in this House when we agree and times when we disagree, but I respect the ruling that you have made today. How can we put on the record that it is reprehensible that there are right hon. and hon. Members in this House who have often advocated our taking back control, but who are now doing the complete opposite in seeking to challenge your ruling? Let us not forget that this amendment seeks to decrease the uncertainty currently being experienced by millions of people across our country—our constituents, our public services and our businesses. How can we make it known to people outside the House who are watching our proceedings that the majority, I believe, of this House respect your ruling, and do not believe that what we are experiencing in this House is any way for us to conduct our affairs?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. She, like many others, has made her position very clear, and that stands on the record for people to scrutinise. On the issues to be voted on today, I return to the point that I was making earlier: I hope that colleagues and those attending to our proceedings outwith the Chamber will understand me when I say that these issues are for the House to decide. I am simply making a selection and then inviting Members of the House of Commons to vote and reach their conclusions. I expect many people feel that it would be seemly and advantageous if we were to do so relatively soon; we have another piece of business first.

Shailesh Vara: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said that you consulted the Clerks. For the sake of clarity, will you kindly inform the House whether the decision that you have arrived at is different from the initial advice provided to you by the Clerks?

John Bercow: I am not confirming or denying that. I am saying what I said earlier, which is that I had a discussion with the Clerk and with other Clerks. We discussed the situation, the various scenarios and the proffering of advice, and I stand by what I said. I have nothing to add to that. It is perfectly proper for the Speaker to consult and hear the views of the Clerks who serve at the Table, and sometimes other Clerks as well.

Martin Whitfield: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I really seek your guidance for myself and perhaps for others in this House. There is a difference between a motion and an amendment. If the Government had wished to prevent amendments, would not a better worded motion a few weeks ago have relieved them of the problem that they find themselves with today?

John Bercow: I am not sure whether I want to speculate on that, but the hon. Gentleman has obviously applied his beady eye to the material on the Order Paper, and he has reached that conclusion. Others may also do so.

Nigel Huddleston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You and your deputies have a well deserved reputation for being absolute sticklers for protocols, processes and conventions in this place, which occasionally I find quite frustrating, but which I utterly respect. To that end, would it be in order for you, in considering this important matter, to consult with your deputies as to the appropriateness of accepting this amendment?

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the short answer is no, and I shall tell him why. The clue is in the title, “The Speaker in the Chair”. The Speaker is elected to discharge his responsibilities to the House to the best of his ability. That is what I have done, diligently, conscientiously and without fail for the past nine and a half years. Mine is the responsibility. I do not seek to duck it.

David Lammy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you agree that in all our experiences in this House, it is extremely unwise to thrust civil servants and officials, who give their advice in confidence  and are neutral, into the public domain in this way? When it has happened in the past, it has often ended very badly indeed for those individuals. The House should stop that. It is extremely inappropriate for a Leader of the House to lead that charge.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman makes his own point in his own way with considerable force and alacrity. I respect him and I respect what he said. As to how others choose to go about their work, that is a matter for them. As far as I am concerned, I am a member of the legislature. I am the Speaker of the House of Commons, a very important part of Parliament. My job is not to be a cheerleader for the Executive branch; my job is to stand up for the rights of the House of Commons, and the Speaker will assuredly  do so.

James Cleverly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your response to the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), you said that this was an unprecedented thing. In response to the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), you said that you did not necessarily intend this to set a future precedent. It is clear that it is important that you are, and that you are seen and believed to be, impartial. Clearly, there is a huge appetite to explore the implications of this decision. Might it not be wise not to implement this decision at such a contentious point in time, to reflect on both—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Had the hon. Gentleman completed his remarks?

James Cleverly: indicated dissent.

John Bercow: Please finish.

James Cleverly: Would it not be appropriate to take time to reflect on the precedent that this decision might set, and instead to make a decision in slower time at a less contentious moment in the business of this House?

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I respect his sincerity, but—I hope he will see this point even if he does not agree with it—the responsibility is mine, and it is not tomorrow, next week, next month, next year; it is now. The Chair has to make his best judgment there and then. That is what I have done, honourably and conscientiously in the firm and continuing conviction that I am right. So while I respect the hon. Gentleman and his sincerity in his point of order, the short answer to him is no.

Angela Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Any of our constituents watching this now will be deeply worried about the future of our country and will not be impressed by this spectacle. A number of the points of order have articulated a series of finely detailed points, but they amount to the same thing: a tedious repetition. Is there anything in the rules of the House that prevents the abuse of the time made available to this House by making the same point over and over again?

John Bercow: Well, I do not think it is helpful when people just make the same point over and over and over again, but as I myself have often observed, it is not unprecedented. [Interruption.] The point has just been made elegantly and eloquently from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that continued repetition is not entirely a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons, so I will deal with it. However, there is a ten-minute rule motion with which to deal, and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) is waiting to present that ten-minute rule motion, and we do then have important business to dispatch. Unless people really feel that they have something new to raise by way of a point of order, I ask them in all courtesy to consider not doing so at this time.

Andrew Percy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, may I ask you to confirm that Members have an absolute right to raise points of order with you and to challenge you in the excellent job that you do as a servant of the House? This afternoon we have been told that we are reprehensible by some Members, and have been accused of wasting time and of being part of a co-ordination. I am part of no co-ordination in this place and never will be.
Secondly, with the greatest respect to you, Mr Speaker—I am agnostic on the decision that you have made and believe you have the absolute right to make it—we talk about the public out there, and there are a lot of people who believe that there is a conspiracy and a procedural stitch-up taking place by a House of Commons which, on the substantive issue of leaving or remaining in the European Union, is grossly out of touch with the referendum result. With that in mind, although I accept your decision and would indeed be more than happy to support you in it, may I again ask that any advice proffered on this matter should be put into the public domain so that the public can make their own decision about that?

John Bercow: The Clerk has just said to me that advice to the Speaker is private, but I do have two things to say to the hon. Gentleman. First, perhaps I can concur with him; I know him, and his whole political background and track record in this place prove that he is not part of co-ordinated efforts. He is very much his own person, and he knows that I have always respected him for that as well as for a number of his other qualities.
Secondly, when the hon. Gentleman refers to a perception out there. To some degree, this brings us back to earlier points of order. I often have to explain this point to constituents and to people I meet around the country, so let me again say this and let me say it explicitly: it is not for the Chair either to try to push a policy through or to prevent a policy being pushed through. That is not the role of the Speaker of the House. The role of the Speaker of the House is to chair as effectively as he or she can in the Chamber and in the management of the day-to-day business, including the selection of amendments, new clauses and so on. What the House chooses to do is a matter for the House. If that applies across the piece, manifestly it applies to the subject of Brexit. What happens on this subject is not a matter for me; I am simply seeking to facilitate the House in deciding what it wants to decide. That has always been my attitude, it remains my attitude and it will continue to be my attitude. Let the House decide on the policy.

Yasmin Qureshi: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not intending to make a point of order, but it is important for me to place on record that in the eight and a half years I have been in this place, every time I have had an occasion to speak to any of the House officials—the Table Office, the Clerks, the Public Bill Office or the Private Bill Office—I have been given the most brilliant advice from everyone. It is really improper for Members here to be saying that advice given to you by the Clerks in the execution of their duty should be revealed publicly. That is most inappropriate and is putting the Clerks in an invidious political position.

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said. I do not know whether there is any precedent for such advice having been issued, but my understanding is that it has not previously been issued. I said what I did in response to an earlier point of order on the basis, once more, of clerkly advice. I know that the Clerk would concur with that view, as I do.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This year will be 30 years since we first met in the final of the competition to be selected for Bristol South, and both of us have been on something of a journey since then. When you were elected as Speaker, you said you would serve for nine years. There has been the controversy of the recommendations of the Dame Laura Cox inquiry into the House of Commons, and you have been defended, particularly by two right hon. Opposition Members, on the importance of your being sustained in position beyond the nine years in order to oversee the discussions and denouement of the Brexit issue.
The uncomfortable conclusion, Mr Speaker, given the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and the implications of the precedent that you have set with this ruling today, is that many of us will now have an unshakeable conviction that the referee of our affairs, not least because you made public your opinion and your vote on the issue of Brexit, is no longer neutral. I just invite you to reflect on the conclusion that many of us inevitably will have come to.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of view. He is quite right that we met, I think, in the anteroom of the Bristol Conservative Association headquarters at 5 Westfield Park, Redland, Bristol in July 1989, so we have known each other for a long time and I take in a perfectly good spirit what the hon. Gentleman has said.
I have explained in response to previous points of order and adduced evidence in support of my argument, including that proffered by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), that I have always done my conscientious best to champion the rights of Members wishing to push their particular point of view on a range of issues and, perhaps most strikingly, on this issue. That is what the record shows. I have always been scrupulously fair to Brexiteers and remainers alike, as I have always been to people of different opinions on a miscellany of other issues. That has been the case, it is the case and it will continue to be the case.
As for the other point that the hon. Gentleman made, he will know that I was re-elected unanimously by this House on, I think, 13 June 2017, for the Parliament. If I have a statement on that matter to make, I would of course make it to the House first. I think that most people would accept that that is entirely reasonable.

Jess Phillips: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I never thought that I was going to be one of the people who would care about the procedures of this House. I scoffed at people who talked of procedure. When I arrived here, I realised that actually it is the procedures of this House, and protecting and developing them, that will make our democracy considerably better. I wonder if you agree with me, Mr Speaker—I have seen two occasions this week of what I am about to say—that people only care about the procedures, and protecting and conserving the procedures, when they do not like the outcome of the thing that is about to happen, and never when it is going in their favour.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady has made her own points with force and style. I think we all know—[Interruption.] Let me put it like this; I will not get into that. I think we all know from our own constituencies that people are inclined to complain about a process when they do not like a result. In this case, to be fair, the result will come only when we have votes on an amendment and a motion. If what the hon. Lady is implying is that people are complaining because they do not like the amendment that has been selected, well, she has made her own point, and that may very well be so. I certainly would not impugn for one moment the integrity of Members of this House who have challenged me today, as they are absolutely entitled to do, and made their own points. I hope that throughout these exchanges today it will be demonstrably obvious to everybody that no matter what point people have made, and how forcefully they have made it, I have heard it, I have heard it fully, I have heard it with courtesy, and I have responded to it with courtesy. That has been my approach and it will always be.

Charlie Elphicke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I join with many others in saying that I appreciate and respect the extent to which you listen to everyone and ensure that everyone is given a courteous, fair and proper hearing, and that the voices and votes of all people should be listened to? That includes, of course, the 17.4 million people who voted leave and will be watching these proceedings and worried about the direction of the House of Commons.
On the substantive question, may I ask for your advice and guidance on the amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)? The reason I raise this is that I am wondering why you selected it, as it seems to me to be defective. It says that
“a minister of the crown shall table within three sitting days a motion under section 13”.
However, there is no sanction if a Minister of the Crown does not table such a motion; nor indeed does it say which Minister of the Crown it needs to be; and if a motion were to be tabled within three sitting days, there is nothing to force it actually to be taken, because it  could end up in the “Remaining orders and notices” section indefinitely. So why are we having this sort of amendment when actually, it seems to me, it does not have any effect?

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said at the start of his remarks and for his usual courtesy. What I would say to him on the substance of the issue is as follows. The judgment for the Chair is whether an amendment—in this context we are talking about an amendment—is orderly and selectable. It is not incumbent upon the Chair to seek to interpret the amendment. That is not my responsibility. If the hon. Gentleman is quizzical on that point—if he believes it to be, as he put it, I think, ineffective, or not effective—his inquiry on that matter should, if I may say so, be lobbed, gently or otherwise, in the direction of his right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), whose amendment it is. That—I am very clear intellectually on this point—is not a matter for me. It may well be very important to the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps to other people, but it is a matter to raise either personally with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield or in an indirect way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I will take remaining points of order from the Government Benches.

Adam Holloway: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), we have all noticed in recent months a sticker in your car that makes derogatory comments about Brexit—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”] No, this is a serious point about partiality. Have you driven that car with the sticker there?

John Bercow: Order. [Interruption.] I think the record will show—and I have the highest regard and affection for the hon. Gentleman—that I have listened to all the points of order. The only reason why I interrupt him at this point—I hope he will forgive my doing so—is that there was a factual error in his opening remarks. I am sure it was an inadvertent error, and I mean that most sincerely, but it was a factual error. He said that in recent months it had been noticed that there was a sticker in my car. That sticker on the subject of Brexit happens to be affixed to, or in the windscreen of, my wife’s car. [Laughter.] Yes, it is. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not suggest for one moment that a wife is somehow the property or chattel of her husband. She is entitled to her views. That sticker is not mine, and that is the end of it.

Nick Brown: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the House is now ready to move on. We have a long day ahead of us, and I beg to move that we proceed to the next business.

John Bercow: Well, that is not a motion that I can accept, but I would like to propose that we come now to the ten-minute rule motion. I call Mr Leo Docherty.

ARMED FORCES (DEROGATION FROM EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Leo Docherty: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Her Majesty’s Government to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights in its application to the conduct of members of the armed forces participating in combat operations overseas; and for connected purposes.
I seek this Bill to ensure that our armed forces are protected from legal pursuit and that the resolve and capability of our armed forces to deliver hard fighting power when needed—[Interruption.]

Richard Benyon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: We are on a ten-minute rule motion, so no.

Richard Benyon: I just wish that people would be quiet.

John Bercow: Order. We will start again. The right hon. Gentleman—

Richard Benyon: This is very important.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman is a person of unfailing courtesy in this House, and I think he also knows our procedures. There are no points of order during a ten-minute rule motion, but he is absolutely right that the speech should be heard, I hope, with courtesy and respect. I thank him for helping the Chair. Let us stop the clock and start again. I call Mr Leo Docherty.

Leo Docherty: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Her Majesty’s Government to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights in its application to the conduct of members of the armed forces participating in combat operations overseas; and for connected purposes.
I seek this Bill to ensure that our armed forces are protected from legal pursuit and that the resolve and capability of our armed forces to deliver hard fighting power when needed around the world is undiminished. The legal pursuit of our soldiers and veterans is a particularly painful chapter in our country’s history and must be urgently resolved.
I relate as illustration a conversation I had last year in my constituency, in the Aldershot garrison, with a senior soldier who had just left the Army after three decades of distinguished service in the most elite units, in the most brutal and demanding theatres of operation. His experience of sustained legal pursuit in relation to operations in Afghanistan left him with a deep sense of betrayal. Even though he was the son of a soldier and had himself served for 30 years, he told me, “My sons  will not serve.” That pained me, because soldiers do not wish to be above the law; they just want to be under the correct laws.
It has been the case for generations that the law of armed conflict and the Geneva conventions have governed warfare in the modern age carried out by our soldiers. That was the case up until 1998 and the unintended consequences of the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, which has led to a catalogue of injustice involving hundreds of soldiers from all operational theatres. Those cases go on today. No other country has such a perverse situation in which soldiers who have done their duty and done no wrong face this kind of sustained legal pursuit. Indeed, 10 countries, including France and Spain, have in effect opted out of certain aspects of the European convention on human rights, so there is a way forward, and we must do the same.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for his terrific work on bringing this issue to the fore and getting it the attention it deserves since his election to this place in 2015. The excellent Policy Exchange report “Clearing the Fog of Law”, which he co-authored, makes clear the alarming manner in which the British military is today entangled in human rights law, to the extent that the European convention on human rights applies wherever and whenever a British soldier employs force. That means that foreign nationals, including enemy combatants, can sue the United Kingdom for a breach of the European convention on human rights in courts both here in London and in Strasbourg following military operations. To prevent that, we must, as other countries have done, derogate from the European convention on human rights.
I also pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who has tackled headlong the outrageous scandal of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. Since coming into this place, he has been instrumental, along with other members of the Defence Committee, in rightly urging my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) to close down IHAT.
The Defence Committee, led by our right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), continues to investigate the scandal of legal pursuit. We have heard recently from witnesses that the Army is
“running scared of the law.”
That must end, and it must end not only because of legacy cases and the past, but because of our concern for the viability of future operations.
Getting the legal basis of military operations right underpins the central mission of our national defence at  this time, which is the rejuvenation of our armed forces to meet a complex new range of manifold threats. It is also part of the process of moving our armed forces from the era of counter-insurgency towards a more conventional posture, which we have lost by necessity through our long engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must state with confidence that we need conventional fighting power. It is not a luxury.
Some commentators suggest that the era of military intervention overseas is over. Whatever the judgment of Members in this House about the wisdom of various past entanglements, the clear lesson of history is that, whether we like it or not, we will need in the future to deploy our soldiers abroad to fight on our behalf—and it will be to fight. We need to be honest with ourselves about that. Soldiers are extremely versatile and adaptable. They can be superb peacekeepers, first-class aid workers, accomplished policemen and effective diplomats. They can do all those roles very well, but they are first and foremost soldiers whose task is to deliver hard fighting power to kill and destroy our enemies. They must have the correct basis in law to do that, in situations where domestic human rights law is completely and utterly inapplicable.
To conclude, we must bring an end to the entanglement of our armed forces in human rights law. We should do that because it is the right thing to do, and we should do it because we have promised to do it; it is on page 41 of our manifesto. We should do it because we need to be honest with our constituents and our society about the role of our armed forces and the fact that they need to fight on our behalf. Our armed forces need to know that they can deploy and fight on our behalf while adhering to the Geneva conventions and the law of armed conflict. They need to know that they can deploy and fight on our behalf and will not then faced spurious legal accusations years and decades after the event. Our armed forces need to know that they can deploy and fight on our behalf with the full confidence of our Government and our society, allowing them to serve in good faith and with pride for the safety of our people and the defence of our nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Leo Docherty, Sir Nicholas Soames, Sir Henry Bellingham, Dr Julian Lewis, Johnny Mercer, Tom Tugendhat, Mr Mark Francois, Sir Mike Penning, Richard Benyon, James Heappey, Jim Shannon and Gavin Robinson present the Bill.
Leo Docherty accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 March, and to be printed (Bill 312).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SECTION 13(1)(B) OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL) ACT 2018) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed forthwith (Order, 4 December),
That the Order of 4 December (Business of the House (Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018)) be varied as follows:
1. Leave out paragraph (2) and insert:
“(2A) The House shall sit on Friday 11 January.
(2B) The allotted days shall be Tuesday 4 December, Wednesday 5 December, Thursday 6 December, Monday 10 December, Wednesday 9 January, Thursday 10 January, Friday 11 January, Monday 14 January and Tuesday 15 January.”
2. In paragraph (3):
a. after “this day” insert “and the fifth allotted day”, and
b. leave out “the Business of the House (Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) motion” and insert “a Business of the House (Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) motion”.
3. In paragraph (4) leave out “and fourth” and insert “fourth, sixth and eighth”.
4. In paragraph (6) leave out “up to six amendments” and insert “any number of amendments”.
5. Leave out paragraph (7) and insert:
“(7) On the final allotted day, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the European Union withdrawal motion at 7.00pm; and such questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6 of this Order which may then be moved.”
6. After paragraph (9) insert:
“(9A) Notwithstanding the practice of this House, a Member may be called to speak twice to the Question on the European Union withdrawal motion without the leave of the House.”—(Jeremy Quin.)
Amendment proposed: (a), at end, add
“7. In the event of the motion under Section 13(1)(b) being negatived or amended so as to be negatived, a Minister of the Crown shall table within three sitting days a motion under Section 13, considering the process of exiting the European Union under Article 50.”—(Mr Grieve.)
Question put forthwith, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 308, Noes 297.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put forthwith and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Order of 4 December (Business of the House (Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018)) be varied as follows:
1. Leave out paragraph (2) and insert:
“(2A) The House shall sit on Friday 11 January.
(2B) The allotted days shall be Tuesday 4 December, Wednesday 5 December, Thursday 6 December, Monday 10 December, Wednesday 9 January, Thursday 10 January, Friday 11 January, Monday 14 January and Tuesday 15 January.”
2. In paragraph (3):
a. after “this day” insert “and the fifth allotted day”, and
b. leave out “the Business of the House (Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) motion” and insert “a Business of the House (Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) motion”.
3. In paragraph (4) leave out “and fourth” and insert “fourth, sixth and eighth”.
4. In paragraph (6) leave out “up to six amendments” and insert “any number of amendments”.
5. Leave out paragraph (7) and insert:
“(7) On the final allotted day, the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the European Union withdrawal motion at 7.00pm; and such questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6 of this Order which may then be moved.”
6. After paragraph (9) insert:
“(9A) Notwithstanding the practice of this House, a Member may be called to speak twice to the Question on the European Union withdrawal motion without the leave of the House.”
7. In the event of the motion under Section 13(1)(b) being negatived or amended so as to be negatived, a Minister of the Crown shall table within three sitting days a motion under Section 13, considering the process of exiting the European Union under Article 50.

EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL) ACT

[5th Allotted Day]

Debate resumed (Order, this day).
Question again proposed,
That this House approves for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the negotiated withdrawal agreement laid before the House on Monday 26 November 2018 with the title ‘Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community’ and the framework for the future relationship laid before the House on Monday 26 November 2018 with the title ‘Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom’.

Stephen Barclay: Before Christmas, the Government presented to Parliament a comprehensive deal for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. We continue to believe that this is the best deal to honour the referendum result and deliver certainty for our businesses, our citizens and our security. It was clear that there was much that Members agreed with, but we listened to the views of the House, which in particular expressed concerns in relation to the backstop. We therefore paused the debate to enable those concerns to be discussed with EU leaders.

Neil Gray: In the intervening month from when the meaningful vote was delayed to the debate restarting just now, not very much has changed. On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State whether he had brought forward any plan B contingency work, and he ignored that question. In the light of the motion and the amendment that have just been passed, it is rather more contingent on the Government to have a plan B —and rather urgently. Will he explain to us now what work has been going on?

Stephen Barclay: We have a very good early illustration in this debate of the attitude of Scottish National party Members, because even before I get into my statement setting out what measures have been taken since the pause in the debate, they have already decided that they have reached their judgment on those measures.

Neil Gray: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Gentleman has already had one go. Let me enlighten him on some of the developments that have happened since the pause in the debate.
Today, we have published a document entitled “UK Government commitments to Northern Ireland and its integral place in the United Kingdom”, which sets out the domestic reassurances we can provide. As the Prime Minister has said, these are one aspect of our strategy to reassure the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Stephen Barclay: I will take interventions in a moment.
Another aspect of our strategy is our commitment to work in a more targeted way and more closely with Parliament in the next phase of negotiations. I will  return to that later. I reassure colleagues that, whatever the outcome of this debate, we will respond rapidly, recognising that we must provide Parliament with as much security as possible.

Frank Field: Amendment (n) deals with what further information the Government might put before the House to ensure that, should we need to use the backstop, this House can decide alone to leave it, without Europe deciding it with us. I had a quick word with the Attorney General, because the amendment involves him. It states that he should report to the House should the Government say that they have new arrangements whereby sovereignty resides in this House in respect of whether we should leave the backstop. Might the Government accept that amendment, please?

Stephen Barclay: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question: what will the role of this House be in the event that the backstop has to be triggered? As he knows, there are safeguards that will mitigate the need for the backstop. It is in neither side’s interest to have the backstop, not least because it breaks the four freedoms that the EU has always rigorously sought. I will come on in my speech to some of the safeguards that apply.

Peter Kyle: The Secretary of State says that he was listening to the debate, which is why he paused it and came back with answers on the backstop. If he did listen to the debate, he will know that concerns relating to importing, manufacturing and security were mentioned as many times as, if not more than, the backstop. What reassurances and changes has he delivered on those things?

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are concerns about issues such as security. That is the very essence of why we need the deal. It will provide confidence on issues such as security and it will secure the implementation period so that things such as security measures will remain in place.
It was clear in the debate before Christmas that there were many views in the House about what trade deal we should enter into with the EU. The possible trade deals included no deal, no deal plus, Norway, Norway plus, Canada, Canada plus, Norway for now and Norway forever. There is a whole spectrum of deals that different Members cling to, but the reality is that whatever deal is to be put in place, it requires the winding down of our 45-year relationship with the European Union. Therefore, whatever deal is put in place requires a withdrawal agreement, and that withdrawal agreement requires a backstop.

Andrew Percy: The Secretary of State made a comment about working more closely with Parliament. I ask him to reflect on the fact that this place is grossly out of touch with the public on the fundamental issue of whether we are a member of the European Union. This House is not representative of the people. The Executive are a legitimate branch of government, so can we be assured that in whatever way they increasingly work with Parliament, the Executive will not give up their responsibility to implement the will of the people, which is a much greater body of sovereignty than this place?

Stephen Barclay: I think it is fair to say that there is a range of views in this House, and that those views are held sincerely by Members of Parliament. As I just alluded to, those views cover a vast range of different deals. I think the point of substance my hon. Friend is referring to is that the clear majority of the House voted to give the public the decision on whether we stayed in or left the European Union, and indeed the majority of the House voted to trigger article 50. It is therefore incumbent on Members of the House not simply to say what they are against, but to be clear what they are for.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Stephen Barclay: I will make a little more progress, then I will happily take further interventions.
The withdrawal agreement addresses many of the key issues that Members, including Opposition Members, have spoken about. For example, it protects citizens’ rights: it protects the 3 million EU citizens in the UK and the 1 million UK citizens in the EU. It provides a financial settlement that honours our legal obligations. Not to do so, as Opposition Members have often pointed out, would undermine our international position. It guarantees an implementation period that means that businesses will have one change to make as we enter a new trade deal, as opposed to two. Most importantly—this is an issue on which the Opposition rightly have a proud record, because they played a key part in the peace process in Northern Ireland—the withdrawal agreement enables us to preserve that hard-won peace and ensure that the commitments that were made in the Belfast agreement are honoured.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Secretary of State realise that the withdrawal agreement and especially the backstop arrangement, which would forcibly remove Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom because laws would be made in Brussels rather than in Westminster and the Northern Ireland economy would be cut off from trade deals that the United Kingdom entered into with the rest of the world, have put in jeopardy the fine balance in the Belfast agreement? That is not helped by the Secretary of State’s reported comments to the Cabinet yesterday that a refusal to vote for the withdrawal agreement would be likely to lead to a referendum on a united Ireland.

Stephen Barclay: I recognise the genuine concerns the right hon. Gentleman has about the backstop. I will come on to address some of those concerns, although I readily concede that I do not expect to address all of them with the areas of movement I cover today.
This is about assessing the balance of risk. The backstop does not cover 80% of our economy, as the services economy is outside it. Many in the business community in Northern Ireland see huge benefits in the certainty that is offered through the withdrawal agreement. Indeed, it is not our intention to enter into the backstop, not least because many businesses in Northern Ireland will have access to both the EU and UK markets. That is one of the attractions, and it is actually one of the reasons why Labour’s sister parties in the north of Ireland—the Social Democratic and Labour party—and  in the south actually support the withdrawal agreement, as well as because it will secure the commitments on peace, as I mentioned.

Stewart McDonald: The Scottish Government have for quite some time made known a number of concerns they have about the agreement. Since December, when the UK Government cancelled the debate to go away and listen, what has changed in the agreement to make the Scottish Government support it?

Stephen Barclay: Again, I will come on to that. As we move from dealing with the winding-down arrangements to the trade negotiation—that will be the second phase of the negotiations, because leaving the European Union is not a single event but a process—there will be a significant opportunity to recognise the fact that Scotland voted differently, as did other parts of the United Kingdom, and to engage with Parliament, as the Prime Minister referred to in her interview on “The Andrew Marr Show” at the weekend. We will be looking to work with Parliament in different ways, and particularly in a targeted way with the Select Committees, and to work more closely with the devolved Administrations, because there are different interests. The trade negotiation phase will allow us to explore that.
I think that “show not tell” is important in politics. My very first meeting in this role—I prioritised this—was with the lead Ministers in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to discuss their concerns, so that we could move from having regular meetings to making them more effective and more targeted.
We know that there is no future trade agreement and no implementation period without a withdrawal agreement, as that agreement contains the guarantee on citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the backstop, but us just look at the Opposition’s position. The Leader of the Opposition rejects that on the basis that he can first trigger a general election and then negotiate a new deal that secures things the EU has consistently ruled out, such as a third party having a say over its trade policy. He is then going to secure that new deal and pass the legislation to enact it, and he is going to do all of that before 29 March. So we are going to have a general election, a new trade agreement—even though the EU itself ruled that out and says this is the only deal on offer, he is going to uniquely secure a new deal—and he is going to pass the legislation to ratify that, all within the next 78 days. Yet Labour’s sister parties actually support the withdrawal agreement, not least to recognise one of the proudest achievements of the Labour party, the peace process.

Jo Johnson: I obviously agree with the Minister’s point about the fantasy policies of the Labour party, but I am afraid the Government themselves are indulging in fantasies. Is it not time that the Government set out a realistic basis for this debate? As the former permanent secretary to the Treasury, Sir Nick Macpherson, said the other day, there is no chance at all of us concluding a trade deal with the EU by 2020 and very little chance of doing so by 2022. A far more realistic prospect is that we might do so in the mid-2020s. Can we not conduct this debate on the basis of reality, rather than continued fantasy?

Stephen Barclay: I pay heed to my hon. Friend, because he is one of the most serious thinkers in our party and I know he engages very seriously on these issues. Of course, the former permanent secretary to the Treasury is also someone we all listen to intently. The point is that there are a number of things that are different in this instance. First, on trade deals, a significant amount of time is often taken up by the first phase of understanding the regulatory positions of both sides. Well, after 45 years of being part of the European Union that regulatory understanding is already there. Secondly, there is a difference because often there are six-week time lags in trade rounds. If people are flying back from Canada or the US, the physical geographical issues can constitute a delay. Clearly, our geographical relationship with Europe will allow us to inject much more pace into those trade rounds and accelerate them. Thirdly, the fact is that we have a political declaration that sets a framework for those trade discussions to take place.
Fourthly, there is also the issue of the incentives that the UK offers—I was going to come on to this point—including the position on security, which is obviously of interest to many member states in Europe, and the fact that the backstop is uncomfortable for the EU. On day one of the backstop fishing rights are lost, which is why President Macron may not be keen on entering into the backstop. There is also the fact that the backstop breaks the four freedoms, which have always been safely guarded by the European Union. The backstop is not a desirable place for the Europeans to enter, which is why there is an incentive for them to get momentum into the trade agreements.

John Redwood: rose—

Stephen Barclay: I will of course give way. May I also take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recent honour?

John Redwood: I thank the Secretary of State. Will he now, as a matter of good contingency planning, urgently publish our schedule of tariffs for trading as an independent country? Can they please be lower tariffs than the EU schedule, and will there be zero tariffs for all imported manufactured components?

Stephen Barclay: My right hon. Friend will know, because he has often spoken in warm and glowing terms about trading on a no-deal WTO basis, that tariffs are just one aspect of our relationships, particularly given the UK economy’s interest in services. Issues such as data adequacy are actually much more significant to our economy. The political debate often focuses on tariffs, but as a service economy issues such as data are much more serious to us. The WTO, which my right hon. Friend often advocates, actually does not address such issues. That is one reason why the WTO is not the land of milk and honey that some pretend.

Chuka Umunna: The problems with the withdrawal agreement extend far beyond the backstop. The Secretary of State talks about services. The fact is that the withdrawal agreement will substantially not help services in this country, which make up approximately 80% of our economy. He talks about certainty. At the end of the day, can he not agree that  this political declaration is a declaration of aspiration? We have absolutely no idea where we will be at the end of the trade negotiations, which EU officials will have told him will take at least three to four years.

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Gentleman has not been able to convince his own Front Benchers. Senior Opposition Front Benchers, such as the shadow Business Secretary, have spoken of the huge damage there would be to our democracy if we did what he advocates, which is to end the uncertainty by calling a second referendum. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We hear the cheers from the Labour Benches. The policy in the manifesto on which Labour Members were elected was to honour the referendum, yet they cheer. It is on page 24 of the Labour manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood.

Alex Chalk: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a fundamental fallacy at the heart of the Opposition’s position? On the one hand they say that there is zero appetite on behalf of the European Union to renegotiate the Government’s deal, yet they claim there is somehow a huge appetite to negotiate another deal as yet unspecified. The reality is that unless they vote for this deal they will become the handmaiden of hard Brexit.

Stephen Barclay: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He alludes to the 78-day plan being put forward by the Opposition, which the EU has made clear is not credible, their sister parties have made clear is not desirable, and which I suspect many on their own Back Benches recognise is not doable. Yet they persist with it.

Shailesh Vara: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Barclay: I will make some progress and come back to my fellow Cambridge colleague very shortly.
The more material issue raised in the House on the backstop related to whether it damages the European Union or would be used in trade negotiations. It is for that reason that we have published the paper on Northern Ireland in respect of that. I recognise that that alone will not be sufficient for all the concerns colleagues may have, but I think it is a welcome step forward.
In the event that a subsequent agreement that meets the objectives of the backstop will not be ready by the end of 2020, we will face a choice of whether to seek to extend the implementation period or to bring the backstop into effect. We will provide in law for a mandatory process of consultation with the Northern Ireland Assembly in that scenario. Before any decision is taken on whether to seek to extend the implementation period, the Assembly would be given an opportunity, ahead of any parliamentary scrutiny, to express its view. Those views would then be brought before Parliament prior to a vote at Westminster. This procedure places a clear obligation on the UK Government, guaranteeing a strong voice for Northern Ireland. We will consult the parties in Northern Ireland on the details of those proposals and how best to provide for them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Stephen Barclay: I will just make progress on this section and then I will happily take further interventions.
Secondly, the protocol provides for alignment in Northern Ireland with a small fraction of EU single market rules. Where there is a proposal for a new EU law which is within the scope of the backstop but concerns a new area of regulation, that addition needs the consent of the United Kingdom. The EU cannot mandate the UK to accept that such a regulation must apply in Northern Ireland. We recognise that accepting new regulations for Northern Ireland under the backstop would be significant. Therefore, we plan to legislate in domestic law to ensure that a UK Minister will be required to seek the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly before reaching any agreement in the UK-EU joint committee to add additional rules to the scope of the protocol.

Shailesh Vara: With reference to the possibility of trading on WTO rules, does my right hon. Friend agree with what was said this morning on the “Today” programme by the president of the Port of Calais, Jean-Marc Puissesseau, when he said:
“The trucks will be passing as they are doing today…there will not be a queue in Dover because there will not be control, so where is the problem?”?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that rather than scaremongering from the comfort of these green Benches, we should take note of the person who is actually in charge of the Port of Calais and who knows what he is talking about?

Stephen Barclay: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course those representing a port will want to talk up the benefits of that port. The issue will be what legal obligations apply, not just what commercially they would want to do. I think he was talking more in terms of what flows into the UK than necessarily what is flowing back into France. In my remarks in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I referred to the fact that we have a political debate that tends to focus very heavily on goods, yet we have an economy that is predicated on services. On issues such as data and professional qualifications, there are many other issues that would not be addressed in a WTO scenario. That is the issue. Many Members are raising various different deals to which they feel most closely aligned, but the issue is that those deals would all require a withdrawal agreement and they would all need to address, as the EU has made clear, issues such as citizens, the financial settlement and a backstop, which is needed as a safeguard. It is not enough for the House to say what it is against; we have to say what is the deal, with a withdrawal agreement and a backstop, that we in this House can unite behind.

Alan Brown: Clearly, the whole point of the backstop is to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, so will the Secretary of State outline the Government’s timeframe for the invention, trial and deployment of the new technology needed for an invisible border with absolutely no infrastructure?

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Gentleman will know that the political declaration reflected the Prime Minister’s negotiation success—this point has been raised by a number of my hon. Friends—in terms of using technology to mitigate the issue of a hard border. In the interim,  the issue is whether we can do that to the timescale required to avoid a backstop. The political declaration allows us to explore that, but this is about having insurance to protect the very peace that so many on the Opposition Benches worked for and quite rightly should take pride in.

Sylvia Hermon: I strongly support the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, which also has considerable support in Northern Ireland among businesses, farmers’ organisations, community leaders and fishermen. I want the Secretary of State to take a few moments to explain to this House the very serious consequences that Northern Ireland could face in the event of the UK coming out of the EU on 29 March this year—it is a very short time away—without a deal. Sinn Féin’s seven MPs, who do not take their seats in this House, are sitting back thinking that all their Christmases have come at once. Will the Secretary of State confirm that they will use a hard border to agitate for a border poll, which could undermine the constitutional status of Northern Ireland? I think that is the issue he may have raised in Cabinet this morning. Will he elaborate on that?

Stephen Barclay: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, first for her support for the Prime Minister’s deal, and secondly for the way in which she engages with such seriousness with issues of substance in Northern Ireland. I am conscious that there are genuine concerns among other Members in Northern Ireland, and we are seeking to address that. She is right to draw the House’s attention to the level of uncertainty that would flow from there not being a deal in place. The Prime Minister’s deal allows us to guarantee the hard-won progress of the peace process and, as the hon. Lady rightly says, many businesses and farming groups in Northern Ireland are very supportive of the deal.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Stephen Barclay: I will just make a little progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
On the backstop, some have asked whether the terms of the withdrawal agreement raise questions for the Union, but Members also need to consider the consequences to the Union of inaction. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has said, if there is no deal, that in itself would pose a risk to the Union, and not just in Northern Ireland, but, as a number of my hon. Friends will know, in Scotland, because SNP Members will seek to exploit a no-deal situation in order to have a further independence referendum. Similarly, inaction that results in a second European referendum would carry risk for the Union, because SNP Members would say, “Well, if we can have a second European referendum so quickly after the first one, we can have a second referendum on independence.” I accept that Members across the House have concerns about the terms of the withdrawal agreement and the backstop—we are trying to mitigate those—but this is not a purity test. This is about balancing those risks with the risk to the Union of inaction and a second referendum being exploited by Opposition Members.

Chris Bryant: I hope that the Secretary of State understands that the issue for some Opposition Members is that there is no legal certainty in the next stage.  For instance, the Home Secretary has repeatedly said that we are going to have the best security arrangements that any third country has ever had with the European Union, but that does not mean anything. It does not mean that we will be in the European arrest warrant or that we will be able to secure proper extradition of paedophiles, murderers and terrorists from other countries to this country—or the other way around—to face justice. That is why some of us think that the Government are completely selling us a pup here. The evidence of the fact that nothing has changed since they pulled the debate is that we have exactly the same motion today and exactly the same deal—nothing has changed.

Stephen Barclay: I am in the process of setting out what has changed, and as I go through my speech, I hope I will have an opportunity to do so. The point is that this is a process, not a single event. The framework signals areas related to the trade negotiation, as I touched on in my remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson).

Several hon. Members: rose—

Stephen Barclay: I will just make some progress, and then I will happily take further interventions.
On the backstop, let me address colleagues’ concerns about being trapped, which was raised in a previous debate. The Government are not shying away from the fact that the backstop is an uncomfortable situation for the United Kingdom, but it is also an uncomfortable situation for the EU, in terms of the break in the four freedoms and the fact that we have a mutual interest in avoiding entering into it.
Indeed, since the previous debate, progress was made in the December Council on the confirmation of its commitment to use best endeavours to negotiate and conclude a subsequent agreement. Indeed, the EU27 gave me a new assurance in relation to the future partnership with the UK, by stating that the EU
“stands ready to embark on preparations immediately after signature of the Withdrawal Agreement to ensure that negotiations can start as soon as possible after the UK’s withdrawal.”
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is busy checking his phone, but that relates to his point. Both sides intend to make early progress on the issues he raised.

Angus MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman talked about the risks to the 96-year-old United Kingdom. I see this as an opportunity for independence, as underlined by the fact that this Government have shown more respect to, and have engaged more with, the Government of Ireland than they have to and with the Government of Scotland. That shows that independence gives you power, a voice and respect—something that the UK does not show the Scottish Government but that it does show in spades to the Government of Ireland, an independent country. The Celts who are independent are in a far better situation than the ones who are stuck with Westminster.

Stephen Barclay: There is a legitimate point as to how we engage with the House as a whole—with Members on both sides—as we move into the next phase. I have already touched on my desire, and the Prime Minister’s  commitment, to look at how we do that with the devolved Administrations in a more targeted way. If we look at the first phase, we will see that a huge amount of hours have been spent on engagement. The Prime Minister has spent a huge number of hours at this Dispatch Box. There are opportunities for us to work in a much more targeted way, to listen to Members’ concerns about issues such as citizens’ rights and employment, and to look at how, through the Select Committees in particular, we can work in a much more targeted way. I think that the next phase lends itself to that approach. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that that also requires a dialogue both ways. If Members are going to jump in, before we have even responded, with a judgment on the withdrawal agreement or on measures that have been taken, that suggests a lack of engagement on their part to work in a collaborative way.

Clive Efford: I had my first consultation with the Prime Minister last night—two years into the process. The Secretary of State is talking about the backstop, but the DUP, which has a confidence and supply agreement with the Government, is vehemently opposed to what he is laying out. How did the Government get themselves into this position? The answer is that they did not consult. If they had taken on the view of this House earlier in the process, they could have negotiated with Europe something that could have been acceptable to this House. The Government have put themselves in this position.

Stephen Barclay: First, as we move into the next phase, there is an opportunity to operate in a much more targeted way with the House. Secondly, on the pause—[Interruption.] I am trying genuinely to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. The pause was about listening to the House’s concerns about the backstop. Look at the comments yesterday by the Taoiseach, who said:
“We don’t want to trap the UK into anything—we want to get on to the talks about the future relationship right away.”
That is because the Prime Minister has been listening to the House and relaying that. As we move from a phase that was about implementing the result into a phase that is about trade negotiations and how they align with the sectoral interests of both the different nation state economies and the Select Committees, there is scope for a different dialogue, and I am very keen to signal that.

Nigel Huddleston: Does my right hon. Friend agree that by definition, if a backstop is to work, it has to be mutually uncomfortable, because there needs to be an incentive for both sides to get out of it? If not this backstop, then another backstop will be necessary. That, too, would have uncomfortable elements. We are not hearing any viable, practical alternatives.

Stephen Barclay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This comes back to the point that businesses and our citizens want the certainty of a deal and want one set of changes in the implementation period. It is clear that that requires, after 45 years, a winding down of our relationship, and that involves a backstop, regardless of which deal—it is almost like cinema pick ‘n’ mix—is  on offer. It is almost like there is a deal with “plus” attached for every variant, but he is absolutely right that they all require a backstop.

Emma Little Pengelly: Is it not a fact that the Republic of Ireland Government, this Government and the European Union have spent years rejecting all and any suggested alternatives to the backstop? What confidence should we have that the European Union, the Republic of Ireland or this Government will, two years after the commencement of this process, start seriously to consider alternatives? The reality is that the backstop will be the European Union’s and the Republic of Ireland’s Northern Ireland solution in a substantive deal.

Stephen Barclay: The answer is that we have already seen a signal of that in the political declaration—on the technology that a number of Members have highlighted, for example. There is a shared desire to avoid going into the backstop, for reasons I have already alluded to, such as the breaking of the four freedoms and the fact that under article 50, there is no legal underpinning for any permanence in the backstop.
Members also need to address the reality of this. Some say, “Well, we’ll pay for an implementation period.” That is another of the myriad deals that people suggest. The reality is that the legal underpinning of the implementation period is article 50, which requires it to be temporary, not permanent. We sought that clarification, and there was a reflection of that in the December Council. Of course I recognise that there are ongoing concerns, and I am very keen to work with colleagues on those.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the way he is taking us through the developments that have taken place. One of the things that a lot of us cannot understand is why, if everybody is so reluctant to go into the backstop—we are told the UK and the European Union are reluctant, and the DUP certainly is—it is not possible to get a legal undertaking about when it will end.

Stephen Barclay: My right hon. Friend brings me on perfectly to the next phase of my speech, which is about the role of Parliament, how we look at the decision on extending the implementation period, and how we avoid that. We will continue to work closely with Stormont, Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly, especially on the future frameworks, which will strengthen decision-making abilities and allow for decisions previously made at EU level to be made locally. Indeed, as I said, we want to learn from this and engage with Parliament in a much more targeted way. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government’s intention is to ensure a greater and more formal role for Parliament in the next stage of negotiations.
The withdrawal agreement provides that if the future relationship or alternative arrangements to supersede the backstop were not going to be ready by the end of 2020, either the Northern Ireland protocol would apply or the United Kingdom could seek to extend the implementation period for up to one or two years from the start of 2021, with any extension needing to be agreed by 1 July 2020. Should that situation arise, the  view of Parliament would be crucial. I am pleased to say that we will accept the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), which will cement Parliament’s role in that process by requiring a vote on whether to seek to extend the implementation period or bring the backstop into effect. On the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) makes, by accepting that amendment, we give Parliament much more of a say on this issue of concern about the triggering of the backstop.

David Jones: rose—

Suella Braverman: rose—

Stephen Barclay: I will happily take interventions from two former Ministers, both of whom served with distinction in the Department for Exiting the European Union.

David Jones: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that extending the transitional period would merely amount to kicking the can down the road, and that to solve the problem of the Irish backstop, which it is generally agreed across the House is the most repugnant element of this withdrawal agreement, what is needed is a rewording of the withdrawal agreement? Has he agreed a rewording of that agreement?

Stephen Barclay: No, because, as I have said on a number of occasions, whichever deal we have will need the elements we have talked about in respect of the withdrawal agreement, including a backstop. Let us not forget what that is about. It is about asking, because of the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland—because it is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land border, and because of its history in terms of the peace process—how we provide a guarantee. It is like insurance; one does not want to have to call on it, but how do we ensure that there is a guarantee to address the concerns that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) set out?

Suella Braverman: I applaud the Secretary of State and his excellent ministerial team in the Department for Exiting the European Union for all their efforts at this challenging time for the Government. In December, the Attorney General published his legal advice, which contains a statement on the backstop. He wrote that
“despite statements in the Protocol that it is not intended to be permanent…in international law the Protocol would endure indefinitely until a superseding agreement took its place, in whole or in part”.
Is it the Secretary of State’s position that that legal position is unchanged, notwithstanding the reassurances that have been garnered to date, and does he agree that that means that in international law, we still risk being trapped indefinitely in the backstop?

Stephen Barclay: With characteristic aplomb, my hon. Friend alludes to one of the key issues in this debate: how one assesses the balance of risk. The Attorney General said in his statement to the House on 3 December, when these issues were explored in great detail, that how one assesses that balance ultimately is a political decision. In a way, the same point can be made about the concerns  Members have expressed about the Union. There is a balance of risk in terms of concerns about the backstop, including the issue of that small section in the backstop where EU competence will continue. What is the risk of that? I have alluded to the safeguards. How does that risk elide with other risks, such as the risk of inaction?
The same is true of the assessment of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), whom I hold in the highest regard. The difference there is an issue not of understanding—he understands these issues in great depth—but of how one assesses the balance of risk. The Attorney General dealt with that in some detail in his comments to the House.

Jonathan Edwards: I support the backstop. What concerns me is our future trade relations. We are essentially renegotiating access to our biggest market as a third-party country. Does that not leave the British state in an extremely vulnerable position?

Stephen Barclay: It is a statement of the legal position to say that to enter into a permanent arrangement, we need to be a third party. That reality is part of the difficulty of this situation. That is why we need an implementation period. We have in the political declaration a framework and in the business statements of the December Council a commitment. In “best endeavours”, we have something that gives legal force to ensuring momentum. It is a shared endeavour, too, because it is in neither side’s interests to trigger the backstop. There is, then, a mechanism, a framework and a process for addressing these concerns. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, however, that there is further significant work to be done, and that will be the job of this House.

David Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat inconsistent for Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru MPs to suggest that Britain would not be in a position to draw up a trade treaty with the rest of the EU as a third-party country, when both believe that an independent Wales and Scotland would be in a position to draw up trade agreements with the rest of the United Kingdom if, God forbid, they ever got independence?

Stephen Barclay: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw the House’s attention to the inconsistency that many of us are familiar with in the SNP’s position, particularly given that Scotland’s biggest market is the United Kingdom. It seems strange that it wants to sever itself from its largest market in that way—and strange also that it appears to want to remain within the remit of the European common fisheries policy.

Vicky Ford: We are spending a lot of time talking about the risks of the backstop, but my constituents are concerned about the risks to their jobs, if they work in sectors not covered by the World Trade Organisation; to citizens’ rights, if they are married to an EU citizen; and to security. All these issues are covered by the implementation period and the breathing space of the withdrawal agreement. Does the Secretary  of State agree that it is important to focus on the benefits of the agreement in front of us, as well as the risks?

Stephen Barclay: My hon. Friend, as a former Member of the European Parliament, always speaks with great authority on these issues, and she is absolutely right. After 45 years, we are winding down a complex relationship with the EU, and certain things are incumbent on us in that process, including safeguarding citizens’ rights and honouring our legal obligations. As a Brexiteer who supported leaving on the basis that we should be trading with the rest of the world, I find it a strange idea that our first measure on leaving would be to walk away from our legal obligations. I do not think that other countries around the globe would find that persuasive.
I know that my hon. Friend is a huge champion of business in her constituency; it is important that we respond to the fact that businesses do not want a series of changes; they want one set of changes, and they want transitional arrangements in place to give them certainty as they go through that process. This is the challenge for the House. It is not enough for it simply to say what it is against, or to suggest that under WTO rules these risks could be mitigated.

Liz Kendall: Is not the reality that the so-called implementation period will essentially keep us in the EU—in the single market and the customs union—so that we do not harm our economy and have more time to sort out what on earth we are going to do, and that the so-called backstop is about aligning Northern Ireland with the EU, so that there does not have to be a hard border and we do not threaten peace in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State talks about the House having to make up its mind. Why is he not more honest? Why does he not admit that this is essentially about keeping us in until we can make up our minds what on earth we are going to do? If that is the case, what is the point?

Stephen Barclay: No, I do not accept that, not least because 80% of the economy is outside the backstop. The political declaration is quite clear that the country will get control of its trade policy. That is one of the inconsistencies in the position of the Leader of the Opposition, who seeks both to be in a customs union and to have an independent trade policy. The shadow Business Secretary is on record as saying that is not a tenable position—[Interruption.] Sorry, the shadow International Trade Secretary.
The point is—this goes to the heart of the hon. Lady’s question—that we need to honour the result of the referendum, which was the biggest democratic vote in our history, in a way that gives us control over immigration through a skills-based system, and over agriculture and fishing, and in a way that allows us to put an end to sending vast sums of money to the EU. These were the key issues on which the British people voted. I recognise that some, in particular the Father of the House, did not vote for a referendum, but the vast majority of the House did, and the vast majority voted to trigger article 50. We need to honour that, but accept that we leave either with a deal or—by default, if the House does not support the deal—with no deal. We cannot run away from that reality.

Julian Knight: As the Secretary of State will be aware, there are reports in the newspapers that Jaguar Land Rover will imminently implement a transformation plan. What that says to me is very simple. Parts for an average Land Rover cross between the UK and the EU 37 times, so it says to me that we need the withdrawal agreement to maintain that just-in-time movement of parts in a way that protects jobs in my constituency and the wider supply chain. This is a matter of urgency. Hon. Members need to think about that when deciding how to vote on the withdrawal agreement.

Stephen Barclay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right both to draw the House’s attention to the urgency of this issue—we have 78 days before we leave the EU—and in his sectoral understanding of the flow of goods and how that impacts the key industries in his constituency. That is why so many business groups support the deal. They want that certainty.

Gareth Thomas: Further to the question from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Father of the House, to the Prime Minister earlier, and in the context of the House having voted against the Government twice over its concerns about the possibility of no deal, does the Secretary of State accept that it would be the Government’s responsibility, if they were defeated next Tuesday, to bring forward legislation to suspend article 50?

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that many hon. Members have raised, but it does not address the legal position. The position of the courts is that we cannot unilaterally extend article 50. That requires the consent of the other 27 member states, and we do not know what conditionality would be attached, if it were sought. In particular, the courts were clear that the only way would be to revoke on the basis of a permanent decision. Given that more than 80% of the electorate voted for one of the two main parties, and that both parties’ manifestos backed the decision to leave—that commitment is on page 24 of the Labour manifesto—I feel it would be divisive for our country to proceed in that way.

Mike Gapes: As somebody who did not vote to trigger article 50, I would ask the Secretary of State to consider this very carefully: if he genuinely does not want a no deal, as many Cabinet members do not, when the Government are defeated next week, should they not come forward with a specific proposal—he has made clear the difficulties of extending the process—either for a people’s vote, so that the public can choose between staying in the EU and the Government’s proposals, or for revoking article 50, so that we can have a national consultation, as they did in Ireland on abortion, and get this right?

Stephen Barclay: I respect the principled position that the hon. Gentleman took in his vote on article 50, but if one recognises the majority opinion of the House, which is what he says we should do next week, it would be only consistent to recognise also that the majority decision of the House was to trigger article 50, and that set a timetable. For the sake of consistency, he needs to accept that. The consequence of triggering article 50 is  that we either leave with a deal—the EU has made it clear that the Prime Minister’s deal is the only deal, so it is not logical for Labour to say it could negotiate another deal in the time remaining—

Mike Gapes: indicated assent.

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Gentleman nods. I think many other Labour Members would agree. Members have to accept the risk of a no deal, therefore, and as a Government, we have to be responsible. We certainly do not want a no deal; I join him in not wanting that. Some Members are very relaxed about a no deal; I do not agree that we should be relaxed about it, because of issues such as data and qualifications, which I think they need to address.

Rushanara Ali: rose—

Stephen Barclay: I will take one more intervention, and then I will wind up my speech.

Rushanara Ali: Yesterday, outside the House, the Secretary of State said that he was beginning to get used to being a punch bag in the House, so I shall try not to metaphorically punch him.
The Secretary of State has said that no deal would be irresponsible. In the light of the recent votes, I hope that he can rule it out, because it would be catastrophic. The Bank of England’s analysis shows that, in a worst-case scenario, the economy would be 8% worse off and unemployment would be 6.5% higher, and the current deal—the Government’s deal—would make our economy nearly 4% worse off. Neither of those are good prospects for our country. Can the Secretary of State at least keep an open mind about a public vote if all else fails?

Stephen Barclay: I respect the concern that the hon. Lady feels, but it is not in the power of an individual Minister to say that that will not happen, because the House has to decide what it is for; it is very good at saying what it is against. The reality is that having triggered article 50, we either leave with a deal or we do not. I do not think it is credible to say that we can negotiate another deal in 78 days, as Opposition Front Benchers have suggested. I think that the alternative would pose a risk to the peace process, which is a fine achievement that should be cherished, but it cannot be ruled out. That is why the deal on the table is the right deal, and one that we should support.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Stephen Barclay: I must draw my speech to a close.
With just 78 days before we leave the European Union, the House should now give citizens and businesses the certainty that they seek, and the way in which to do so is to back the deal that, after two years of hard-fought negotiation, the Prime Minister has secured. It is for that reason that I commend the deal to the House, and I hope that all Members, mindful of the risks of uncertainty that will otherwise flow, will respond by backing it.

Keir Starmer: It is a pleasure finally to be able to resume this debate.
Thirty days ago, on 10 December, the Prime Minister told the House that the meaningful vote would be deferred. She did, of course, do so without consulting the House on the issue. The ground that she laid out on 10 December was that if the Government
“went ahead and held the vote”,
which was due to take place the next day,
“the deal would be rejected by a significant margin.” —[Official Report, 10 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 23.]
That was her judgment call. She said that she would do everything possible “to secure further assurances”, particularly over the issue of the Northern Ireland backstop.
The Leader of the House went further, saying:
“going back to the EU and seeking reassurances, in the form of legally binding reassurances”
was
“absolutely doing the right thing”.
The implication was that this was a pause to allow further assurances—legally binding reassurances, according to the Leader of the House. The International Trade Secretary, with his usual foresight, said:
“It is very difficult to support the deal if we don’t get changes to the backstop.
I am not even sure the Cabinet will agree for it to be put to the House of Commons.”
That was his assessment.
Those were senior members of the Cabinet, indicating to Parliament and to the country that the deal, the proposition before the House, needed to be changed if it were to be voted on and not defeated by a substantial majority. They were, of course, challenged. They were challenged on the basis that this was just a way of delaying and avoiding a humiliating defeat, and they were running down the clock. Now, 30 days on, those rebuttals ring hollow.
The Prime Minister is often mocked for saying that nothing has changed, but this time nothing has changed. The proposition before the House today is the same proposition as the one that the Prime Minister put before the House on 5 December, when she opened the initial debate. I have my own copies of these two documents, but the two copies that I have here were laid on the Table at the beginning of the debate. They are the proposition that is before the House, and, as everyone in the House knows, they are precisely the same two documents that were put before the House on 5 December. When we go through the Lobby next Tuesday, we will be voting for or against these two unchanged documents.

Sylvia Hermon: Given that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just picked up the withdrawal deal, I am sure that, being the learned gentleman he is, he has read, on page 307, the guarantee and the protection for the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—and the consent principle. Twenty years ago, his party, the Labour party, was the architect—thank the Lord—of that agreement, which put an end to the appalling violence of more than 30 years in Northern Ireland, when 302 police officers lost their lives and thousands of innocent people lost theirs in the terrorist campaign. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the House, and to the Irish diaspora in Labour constituencies, how it is that the Labour party is voting down a deal that guarantees the agreement?

Keir Starmer: Let me take that point head on, because it is very important. Our party—both parties—played an important part in the peace process, and I genuinely think that there is a consensus, or a near-consensus, across the House on the importance of that agreement. We have been very proud of upholding it. Even in the course of these debates over the last two years, every time it has come up there has been a reiteration of the principles. I myself worked in Northern Ireland for five years, with the Policing Board, implementing some of the recommendations of the Good Friday agreement, and I therefore have first-hand knowledge of how both communities see it, what the impact was before change, and what it is now. However, I do not think it fair to characterise anyone who says that these two documents are not the right deal for our country as undermining the Good Friday agreement. That simply means that there can be no criticism, no issue, no challenge to the Government, which cannot be right.
In addition, I have stood at this Dispatch Box and moved amendment after amendment whose objective was a customs union and a single market deal, which I genuinely believe constitute the only way of securing no hard border in Northern Ireland. On every occasion, the Government voted those amendments down. To say at this stage that we have tried to do nothing to protect the position is simply not right. [Interruption.] I will come to the issue of the need for a backstop—I will tackle that issue—but I wanted to deal with the intervention.

Kenneth Clarke: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered the key question asked by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I cannot understand why the Labour party is joining in the criticisms of the Irish backstop. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has repeated his commitment to a permanently open border. He has also repeated—and I agree with him about this—that there can only be a permanently open border if there is a customs union and regulatory alignment. If they are to be permanent, that must be kept permanently.
What the critics on this side of the House are saying about the backstop agreement is “We are not allowed to cancel it unilaterally.” If they are given that power, it is no longer a permanently open border. With the greatest respect, it does smack of opportunism that the Labour party is joining opponents of the backstop with whom it has no agreement whatever politically. The answer is to have the same open border for the whole United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom to be in a single market and regulatory alignment, and that is not inconsistent with the referendum.

Keir Starmer: That suggests that the customs arrangements under the backstop are the same as customs arrangements that we have currently, but they are not.  I have read the document in detail several times, and I know what the customs union that we are in looks like and I know that the one under the backstop is fundamentally different. It is fundamentally different to the amendments that we have been faithfully tabling for 12 or 18 months. It is therefore unfair to say that because it is called a “customs arrangement” or a “customs union” that it is all the same; it obviously is not. The arrangements for Northern Ireland are different from those for England, Wales and Scotland, and even the arrangements for England, Wales and Scotland are not the same as the customs union that we are in now.
Among the deficiencies is that we would not have any say over future trade agreements during any period in the backstop, which has not been built in because the Government are pretending that any period would not last long. I will address the point about having a say, but we would not be able to strike our own agreements and would take no advantages from trade agreements struck by the EU. That is a fundamental deficiency of being in the backstop. It is not right or fair to pretend that such issues do not exist, that we cannot seriously engage with them, or that the importance that the Labour party puts in the Good Friday agreement is somehow undermined. That just removes the ability to challenge. The withdrawal agreement is a serious document, and it is what the Government have put before us to analyse and vote on, so we are entitled to say that it is not good enough. However, that does not mean in the next breath that we do not stick by the commitments in the Good Friday agreement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will make some progress and then take further interventions.
The withdrawal agreement is the same document that was before the House when the Prime Minister announced that she was postponing the vote. It is the proposition that she said she thought would be defeated by a significant margin. No changes have been made either to the 584-page, legally binding withdrawal agreement or to the incredibly vague political declaration. There is no new text for this House to consider.
Some of us expected the Prime Minister to make a statement on Monday to tell the House what had happened while we were in recess, to update us on any meetings or discussions that she may have had—we read about them in the press—and to say whether anything had changed. She did not come to make a statement. The Brexit Secretary handled an urgent question, the central thrust of which was about what progress had been made and what changes there had been. The Brexit Secretary defended his position with a smile, attacking the Opposition, as he always does, by asking, “What’s your proposition?” while ignoring the fact that we are voting on the withdrawal agreement, not on what anyone else is saying. He smiled, attacked the Opposition and swerved challenges, but he did not answer the question, and the reason why is that there has been no meaningful change.

Stephen Doughty: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Keir Starmer: I will just make this point and then give way.
I was here for Prime Minister’s questions today, and I carefully noted what the Prime Minister said in answer to the first question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. First, she said that the changes that she is now relying on are the results of the December European Council summit, at which the EU agreed that it would use “its best endeavours” to secure the future relationship as quickly as possible. What else could it say? Of course, we would hope that it would do that.  However, the EU also said at the same summit that the withdrawal agreement cannot be renegotiated, so that does not take us very far.
Secondly, the Prime Minister said that further clarifications might be “possible” by Tuesday, so we are in exactly the same position as we were on 10 December, with a hope for possible assurances—there may be something coming.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister referred to the paper on Northern Ireland published this morning, and the Brexit Secretary referred to it, too. Members may not have had the chance to read this 13-page document, but I have read it. I do not dismiss anything that marks a step towards ensuring that the concerns in Northern Ireland and across the whole United Kingdom are addressed, whatever they are, so I am not dismissing this document. However, on my reading—if I am wrong, I will correct this or be corrected—I think I am right in saying that the document does not contain any new commitments. It brings together the unilateral commitments made in other places at other times into one document. I have been going through the document as I have been in the Chamber, so if I am wrong, I will be challenged but, as far as I can see, it just builds on the unilateral commitments in paragraph 50 of the phase 1 joint report document from December 2017 and adds the commitments that the Prime Minister has made in Belfast and other places. I am not saying that those commitments are not important or are without significance. I do not dismiss them, but we need to see the document for what it is, which is a bringing together of existing commitments. The position has not changed between 10 December and today.
The fourth thing that has been relied upon as a change that the House needs to take into account is that it is now said that Parliament will have a role in July 2020 when we must choose whether to apply for an extension of the transition or to go on to the backstop. There are several points about that, one of which is that it does not change the options, and I will develop why I think that those options will have to be exercised. Arguably, it is the logic of the article 50 case in the Supreme Court, certainly if we go on to the backstop, because the whole argument in the Supreme Court was that if we change the rights of individuals in this country as a matter of international law then we have to have a vote in this House, so I am not sure that this is much of a gift or concession from the Government.
The other point is the practical reality, which we have seen today and yesterday: the idea that the Prime Minister or anybody else was going to get away with freezing Parliament out of that decision in July 2020 is misconceived. We were always going to have a say on that, because it is such an important position. So the proposition on the table is not altered. The Brexit Secretary did not answer substantively on Monday because the December summit does not really take us anywhere: further clarifications may be possible but they are still long awaited, the Northern Ireland paper is a bringing together of existing commitments that does not change anything, and Parliament was always going to find a way of having a say in July 2020 as to which option we take.

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Oliver Letwin: rose—

Keir Starmer: I promised earlier to take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), so I will give way to him first.

Stephen Doughty: I concur with my right hon. and learned Friend that nothing has changed. Does he therefore agree that the Prime Minister’s decision to delay was not only wrong, but irresponsible, because on every single day that has gone by during that time we have seen the Treasury spending more and more taxpayers’ money to prepare for a no deal that it says it does not want, businesses cancelling investment plans, and jobs being put at risk? All of that is deeply irresponsible, particularly when nothing has changed.

Keir Starmer: I agree with that, because if the Prime Minister’s own judgment is right that this deal as it was on 10 December is likely to go down by a significant margin, that brings into sharp focus the role of this House in debating and deciding what happens next, and the more time we have for that, the better. We have just been deprived of 30 days of that because we will not now get on to it, probably, until next week.

Oliver Letwin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has listed a series of things that have not changed. One thing that I note has not changed are the terms of his and the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment in calling for
“a permanent UK-EU customs union”,
a perfectly clear phrase that we all understand completely, and a “strong single market deal”. I am one of those in this House who would like in some way or another at some point or another in the not too distant days to arrive at some cross-party agreement about something we could actually go forward with, and therefore I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain to the House what kind of “strong single market deal” would need to be delivered in order to get an agreement.

Keir Starmer: I can deal with that because, as Members know, I have been talking to the EU and the EU27 for quite a long time now, not to undermine the Government’s position—it was actually facilitated by the first Brexit Secretary of State in some respects—but to explore what other options are possible. At present the customs union operates on the basis that the Council sets the mandate for the Commission, the Commission does the negotiating, and Parliament then has a role. So if we want a customs union that replicates the benefits of the current customs union and we want the UK to have a say in that we must find something that is similar to that, but obviously not the same as it, and the central question I have been addressing is whether the EU would be interested in a discussion about what that sort of working customs union would look like. [Interruption.] I actually had the discussion. [Interruption.] It is very easy for Members on the Treasury Bench to chunter, but I have been responsible and actually gone and had the conversation asking whether there is a basis for a discussion about a customs union that would work in that way. I have been very clear that if it ended up as something akin to the Turkey customs union—which works for Turkey—that really would not be good enough.
As for a single market deal, my own view is that there are advantages in what we call the Norway model but that there are also disadvantages in that, and therefore it must be possible—again, I have had discussions—to explore a close economic relationship that keeps alignment, with, of course, oversight and enforcement mechanisms to go with it, but which is not simply the EEA.
I say all that in some detail in order to reassure the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) that when we talk about a close economic relationship, a customs union with a say, and a close single market deal, we are talking about concepts that I have surfaced only after I have had discussions with EU27 countries and the EU about their possibility. I am not going to stand here and pretend that that will be easy; rather, I am standing here saying that we have been pressing for at least 12 or 18 months to have that. One of the major problems—this is at the heart of the debate and the fractiousness about it—is that the Prime Minister and the Government have pushed Parliament away. They had a choice—

David Lidington: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will give way in a moment, but I want to make this point because it is very important.
I campaigned to remain; I wanted to remain.
I agonised over whether we should trigger article 50, but I worked out that, having accepted the result of the referendum, it was not open to me to stop the Prime Minister starting the negotiations. What I wanted is for this House to have a proper role—by consensus, or at least by majority, if possible—in finding a way forward.
It was obvious that the sorts of arguments that are happening in the House, particularly among Conservative Members, if I may say so—I do not think that is controversial—would break out. It was obvious because for 30 years there has been a discussion, for want of a better word, in the Conservative party about not just the relationship with Europe but the vision for our country. That argument was always going to break out, and it was always going to divide Conservative Members. That is obvious, and it is not just an Opposition point. In those circumstances, a different Prime Minister might have said, “I can see what is going to happen down the line, and I need to bring Parliament into this.” That has been refused at every twist and turn.
Let us be honest that we are having a vote on Tuesday only because we fought to have it. I coined the phrase “meaningful vote”, and, working across parties, we got the amendment, which was resisted by the Government. They went through the Lobby to say no. We said, “You have to publish a plan,” and the only reason we got a plan was that we won an Opposition day motion—the Government were going to oppose that motion. We said that we wanted to know what the impact would be, and the Government said, “You can’t.” We had to get it via a Humble Address. We have seen the Supreme Court and the idea of even voting on article 50 in the first place, and then the Attorney General’s advice. The Government have persistently voted down every motion. The one thing I remember the first Brexit Secretary saying to me, over and again, on the article 50 Bill was that he wanted  a clean Bill: “I want a clean Bill, and I will make sure that every amendment is voted down.” That was his avowed aim.

David Lidington: I completely accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s central point, which is that there is space for completely honourable debate within and between political parties in this House about the outcome of the negotiations on the future permanent relationship between this country and the EU27, and the various options, from Norway to Canada and every variation in between, have their champions in this place. But from his conversations with the EU institutions and with members of the 27 Governments, surely he will have accepted that the essential and unavoidable gateway to any such destination of a final agreement has to be the withdrawal agreement, which covers citizens’ rights,  the Irish border and the financial settlement, which is the key document that we are being asked to endorse and ratify. What is his objection to that document?

Keir Starmer: I accept that there has to be a withdrawal agreement, and I accept that it has to cover citizens’ rights and that there are payments. I have on more than one occasion stood here and said that the progress on citizens’ rights under the withdrawal agreement is a step in the right direction, although it does not go far enough—we have quibbled about that, but there will always be an argument about whether we have gone far enough.
I have also stood here and said that we will have to fulfil our financial obligations, for the very reason the Brexit Secretary said, which is that we will not get very far in trying to reach trade agreements, or any agreements, with anybody else on the international plane if, at the same time, we are walking away from the international agreements or obligations that we have.
That does not mean I do not have concerns about the withdrawal agreement, and about the backstop in particular. The backstop has become the central issue for two reasons: first, the lack of progress on the future relationship, and I will develop that point in just a moment; and, secondly, the avowed aim of some Conservative Members to diverge as far as possible from EU alignment. It is that fear that has driven the debate on the backstop, and it could have been avoided months ago.

Oliver Letwin: I am doubly grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way again. It is helpful to address this point after the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this one stage further? If there were a cross-party agreement on the terms of an EU-UK customs union of the kind he describes, and if there were some variant of a “strong single market deal”—whether Norwegian or otherwise—is he saying it is the position of the Labour party that it would then co-operate with Her Majesty’s Government to arrive at an agreement about how to reshape the political declaration in such a way as to enable the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration to go forward so that we can exit on 29 March?

Keir Starmer: There is the customs union point and the single market deal point, and there are other issues relating to rights and protections, whether they are workplace rights or environmental rights and so on.  Obviously, at some stage, if we are to leave other than without a deal, there has to be a consensus in this House for something. That is why the wasting of the past 30 days has been so regrettable, because that is where we need to get to. At no point have the Government reached out across the House at all, even after the snap election. I actually personally thought that at some stage somebody might give me a ring and ask what would be the main features that we could at least begin to discuss, or whether it was worth even having a discussion about them.
The second point gives meat to this. Time and again we have tabled amendments along the lines I have been talking about, and time and again the Government have just blindly whipped against them, without any regard to whether they were good, bad or indifferent; they were just Opposition amendments, so they were going down.

Clive Efford: We know from the author of article 50 that it was drafted with the intention that it should never be used, so 29 March is an arbitrary date. It is only now that the Government have started to reach out and indicate that they might be willing to discuss Brexit with other parties in this House in order to get consensus, but we have run out of time. Surely the Government now have to listen and consider the fact that we may have to suspend article 50, or even to seek its revocation.

Keir Starmer: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do accuse the Government of running down the clock, and it is a serious allegation. The article 50 window is two years—it is very short. The Government started the two years by having a snap general election, and lost two or three months. They then went through to the end of the phase 1 agreement, but it was not until June last year that we even had a Chequers plan, so the two-year window has in effect been run down. There is a question of the extension of article 50, which may well be inevitable now, given the position that we are in, but of course we can only seek it, because the other 27 have to agree.
The other serious question with which I have been engaging is about the appetite of the EU, after the negotiations have gone the way they have, to start again and to fundamentally change what is on the table. I have to say, with regret, that I genuinely think that the way the Government have gone about the negotiations, particularly in respect of the red lines that the Prime Minister laid down in the first place, has undermined a lot of the good will that would otherwise have been there.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will give way once more and then I really am going to get on, because I have been giving way for around half an hour.

Kenneth Clarke: This is my last intervention. To go back to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), which was pertinent to the situation we are all in, he asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying on behalf of the Labour party that, if there was a cross-party agreement on a form of customs union, sufficient regulatory alignment and so on, his party would join in that  positively, with a view to reaching a solution and moving on to the serious negotiations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has turned that question into an attack on the Government, and I agree with him. I share his criticism that the Government should have made serious overtures to the Opposition long, long ago; but as we are now so short of time and we are all in danger of going towards a no-deal exit, which only a small minority in the House positively wants, is it not time for him to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset? Is the Labour party available for discussions with a positive view to reaching a conclusion on a customs union and sufficient regulatory alignment to keep open borders?

Keir Starmer: I have been available for discussions for the whole time I have been in this post. I have spoken to Members on all Benches about amendments, some of which have had cross-party support. We are going to have to have a discussion—I think starting after Tuesday—about where we go next. We will all have to enter that in the right spirit, because I genuinely think that leaving with no deal would be catastrophic. I also genuinely think that we cannot do it on 29 March this year; it is simply not viable for so many practical reasons. We are going to have to look at what available options are realistically still on the table and what now are the merits of each of them. There are different options; we are just discussing one of them. There are other options that I know members in my own party feel very strongly about, such as a public vote. But we are going to have to sit down and consider credibly what are the options and how Parliament takes control of what happens next. We will enter that in the right spirit, but we will all have to acknowledge, I am afraid, that some of the options that may have been there a year or two ago are not there in the same shape and form as they would have been at the time of the manifestos.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: No, I really am going to make some progress now because I have been giving in—hopefully, I have been giving way, though I may have been giving in as well!
I have made the point about this being the same proposition on the table, but let me just go to the heart of the problem of why we are so stuck on this question of the backstop on which I have been challenged. At the heart of the problem is the future relationship document. The truth is that there has been barely any progress on the future relationship. It is a flimsy 26-page document. In truth, it is an options paper—a 26-page options paper—which could and should have been written two years ago. Paragraph 28—I know that everyone has marked it up, but it is worth having another look at—covers the implications for checks and controls. This is the future relationship. It says:
“The Parties envisage that the extent of the United Kingdom’s commitments on customs and regulatory cooperation, including with regard to alignment of rules, would be taken into account in the application of related checks and controls, considering this as a factor in reducing risk.”
It then goes on to say that there is a “spectrum of different outcomes”. What it is saying is that we do not  know yet what the commitments on customs and co-operation will be. We do not know what the alignment will be. If it is close it might lead to one result; if it is not close it might lead to another result—a spectrum of different outcomes.
The document has 26 pages, at the heart of which is a “spectrum of different outcomes”. We keep calling it a deal, but this is not a deal; it is an options paper. It is an options paper that has been written by others. We have all mocked up an options paper, as have various academics. Let me contrast this with what the previous Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), said. We were challenging him over the summer about the future relationship and trying to get an assurance from him that we would have a precise and detailed document that we could vote on so we know where we are going. He said this:
“What is important is that it is clear and specific enough”—
the future relationship document—
“that we are not talking about options for negotiations”—
that is what it would not be—
“but we are clear on the choice of model”—
so it is a clear model that he said we would have—
“and therefore that it reads as a direction for the UK and the EU to get on with it—that we are really implementing heads of terms for an agreement.”
This is miles away from that. This is not a deal, and that is the cause of the problem.
The cause of the problem is this: whatever the Secretary of State says, nobody but nobody who is serious about this thinks for one moment that this document will turn into the future relationship and come into force on 1 January 2021. Nobody credible thinks that. It is a complete myth. It is precisely the same as the myth that this would all have been negotiated by now, which is why there is such anxiety about the backstop. The backstop should never have been the driving force—the focus. We should have been so far advanced in this part of the negotiation that the backstop would have been a bit of a non-issue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I just want to make this point. We need to understand why this document is so flimsy. It is not just an accident. It is not just that people were not working hard. It is not just that the civil servants, who have worked really hard in all this, were not doing their job. It is for two primary reasons.
The first was that the Prime Minister laid down her red lines in autumn 2016 without consulting the House and, I think, without consulting the Cabinet. She said that those red lines were: outside the customs union, outside the single market and no role for the European Court of Justice. She added the suggestion that
“if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere.”
That was an interpretation of the referendum—we can argue whether it was a good or bad one—by a small team of, I think, three of four people. That was not even the interpretation of the Cabinet, and certainly not of this House. We only have 26 pages on the future relationship, because that got us off to the worst possible start to the negotiations. Those were political  choices, not necessities. They were the Prime Minister’s choices, which set her on a path, and this is where it ended.
Add to that the fact that we only got the Chequers proposal in June last year. Anybody who visited Brussels between the triggering of article 50 and June 2018 will have heard the same complaint that I heard: “We don’t know what the UK is actually asking for, and therefore we can’t really advance the negotiations.” When we first got the Chequers proposal in June last year, those in Brussels acknowledged that at least there was now a plan on the table. Of course, Chequers did not unlock the problem, because it was a plan that led immediately to Cabinet resignations, that MPs were quick to say they opposed and would not agree to in any circumstances, and that the EU rejected. That is why there are only 26 pages, which expose the thinness of the proposals.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will just crack on.
What we see from this document is that the envisaged future relationship will not deliver frictionless trade; it does not aspire to any more. There is no plan for a permanent customs union and no certainty for financial services. In fact, there is almost nothing for financial services. On workplace rights and environmental protections, there is nothing to ensure that standards do not fall behind over time. No wonder the general secretary of the TUC said:
“This is a bad deal for working people: bad for jobs and bad for rights.”
It also places us outside a whole raft of common EU programmes and agencies. Again, much of that flows directly from the Prime Minister’s insistence that there should be no role whatever for the European Court. She put that red line down, and once she had done so, any meaningful participation in those bodies became very difficult.
For five years, I was the representative of the UK in Eurojust, which, as the House will know, plays an important part in the investigation and prosecution of very serious offences across Europe, as do other agencies. In order to have the full participation that makes sense, we have to accept the oversight and enforcement mechanisms that go with it, but the red line made it impossible and led to such a thin document as this.

Alberto Costa: I have heard colleagues ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeatedly about the Labour party’s proposals and whether it would work on a cross-party basis. He indicated at the Dispatch Box that he would enter into cross-party discussions. Is he speaking for the Labour party or as an individual, and what proposals does he have?

Keir Starmer: I have to say that I love this. We are voting on the Government’s deal, but Members are attacking the Labour party’s plan. Well, that makes a lot of sense. Whatever else we are going to do next Tuesday, we are not going to vote on our plan. Let us be serious.

Alberto Costa: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Keir Starmer: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question and I am answering him. Whether we like it or not, the Government’s deal is what we are voting on. We are not  voting on what any one of us may think, say or do. Having not made any attempt to engage seriously with the Opposition on amendments and proposals, it is a bit rich for Government Members to now say that it is somehow the Opposition’s fault that the Government are in a mess and cannot get their deal through. I gently say that there is huge interest in what the Opposition think. Why? Because, in an ordinary set of proceedings and absent the snap general election, there would be a majority on the Government Benches for the Government’s own proposition. This challenge needs to be put in its proper context: it is because Conservative Members know full well that they are not all going into the same Lobby.

Vicky Ford: rose—

Julian Knight: rose—

Keir Starmer: If anyone wants to intervene on me and say that the Conservatives are all going into the same Lobby, they can, but I do not think that is the case. The point is that the Government are so divided that they cannot get their own deal through. That is the truth of the matter.

Vicky Ford: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am going to make some progress.

Vicky Ford: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I am well aware that the hon. Lady is a former chair of the Internal Market Committee of the European Parliament. In case there are people present who were not aware of that, among the litany of achievements that she can proclaim, I have done a public service in advertising that important fact. However, it does not give her an automatic right to intervene. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will decide whether he wishes to give way to the hon. Lady, and at the moment he is not giving way.

Keir Starmer: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Vicky Ford: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am not going to give way.
It is no good us pretending about this. I have said in recent weeks and months that the future relationship document is 26 pages long and that it is thin and flimsy, and the answer that now comes back occasionally is, “It was always going to be that way. What did you expect? It’s a future relationship.” Well, I will tell Members what the Prime Minister expected. I see nods from Conservative Members, but the Prime Minister was very clear about what she expected, and she set it out in her Lancaster House speech on 17 January 2017:
“I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article Fifty process has concluded.”
I repeat:
“I want us to have reached an agreement.”
She continued:
“From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements”.
At the time, I was proposing that that was a transition period, and the Prime Minister and various Secretaries of State for Brexit kept insisting it was not a transition period, because that would imply that we were negotiating in it; instead it was an implementation period, because—[Interruption] No, this is what they argued. They said that the agreement would have been reached and all we would need to do was implement it—to phase it in—during the two-year period. So the idea that this is as it was always going to be—that a blind Brexit was inevitable or an inherent part of the process—is completely contradicted by the Prime Minister’s own words when she said what was going to be achieved.
There are very serious consequences to having such a flimsy document on the future relationship. First, it invites this House to vote on a blind Brexit. I and other Labour Members have very strong views on what the future relationship should look like. Given a document that does not set out whether it might end up as a distant Canada-style model of some sort, or a closed Norway-style model, how can one expect any responsible Member of this House to say, “I don’t know where this is going to end, I don’t know what it’s going to look like, it could actually turn out to be an agreement I fundamentally disagree with, but I shall vote for it”? That just cannot be right. That is the problem—it is a blind Brexit. Secondly, as I have said, because the document is so thin, nobody serious, either here or in Brussels, is suggesting for one moment that the agreement is actually going to be ready by January 2021.
That means that we are going on to either an extended transition or the backstop. That is going to happen. If anybody is intending to vote next week on the pretence or understanding that we are not going to be here arguing about this in July 2020, I genuinely think they are labouring under a misconception—they are wrong. We will either be going on to the transition or going on to the backstop if the deal goes through in this form. We cannot escape that and simply pretend it is not going to happen.
I have said a few words about the backstop. As the Secretary of State rightly said, it provides for citizens’ rights and financial obligations. I do not shy away from the commitments made under the Good Friday agreement. I certainly have no truck with those who play down the importance of the Good Friday agreement—it is not the Secretary of State, the Government or the Prime Minister—or even say that their version of hard Brexit somehow overrides it. Those commitments are serious, and they have to be kept.
I also accept that, given the lack of progress in the 26-page document that we have, at this stage, sadly, some sort of backstop is inevitable. Having got to this stage of the article 50 exercise, it is now inevitable that we cannot finish the exercise within the transition period. There are risks under the backstop, and the Attorney General’s advice, which we fought to uncover last year, set them out pretty starkly. There is the fraught question of whether the backstop would, in truth, be indefinite or temporary. We can have views on that, but we cannot avoid the fact that it is a live dispute, and the Attorney General gave his view on that.
It is also indisputable that once we are in the backstop, if that is what happens in January 2021, it will introduce barriers to trade between England, Wales and Scotland  and the EU. That is spelled out in the document. We are putting up barriers to trade in January 2021 if we go into the backstop. I have already touched on the inadequacy of the proposed customs arrangements.

Jonathan Edwards: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen the article written over the weekend by Peter Hain and Paul Murphy—both former distinguished Members of this House and Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland who played an important part in the peace process—in which they made the case that the backstop is an important element that we must honour. Has he had an opportunity to reflect on that?

Keir Starmer: I have read the article, and I reflect on it. I used my words carefully; I said that there are risks in the backstop, which the Attorney General’s advice set out, and they are real risks.
There is a risk that we should not be blind to. The Attorney General spelled out in his advice that the backstop, as a matter of international law, may well be indefinite—he said that it is arguable either way—and that we therefore cannot get out of it unilaterally. We know that, and we have had a discussion about it. However, he went on to say that we cannot get out of it even if the negotiations completely break down and an allegation of bad faith is found. That is not just—

Robin Walker: indicated dissent.

Keir Starmer: He did say that. I flushed that advice out, and I have read it over and over again. It is absolutely clear. The Attorney General says that if an allegation of bad faith is found, the only remedy is to ask the parties to act in good faith. That is spelled out in the advice. I know that the Minister is an honourable man and will concede that. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is bad faith—of course I am not. I do not think that the negotiations have been or will be negotiated in bad faith, but a country ought to pause before it simply says that an international agreement with those sorts of arrangements is to be waved through because we have used so much time up that we cannot do anything else.

Robin Walker: The point I was making—I apologise for making it from a sedentary position—is that the Attorney General said that, on the balance of probabilities, the backstop would not be entered into. He also pointed out that it could be challenged legally under European law were it ever to be entered into.

Keir Starmer: I understand the argument that article 50 can only be a vehicle for a temporary arrangement and not a permanent one. The Attorney General addressed that, and it is obvious to anybody who has read and understood article 50 rightly. However, the point the Attorney General was addressing was the circumstances in which we could bring the backstop to an end once we were in it, as a matter of international law. Whether article 50 permits it or not, or what the Court would do if it were challenged, is an open question.
The Attorney General said that the backstop may be indefinite—he did not say it was indefinite—but he called into question the argument that it will be temporary.   I have noticed that the Prime Minister is very careful in the way she puts it: she always says that the backstop is intended to be temporary. I do not think she has ever used any other phrase, presumably because she is bearing in mind what the Attorney General has advised. I am not saying that there does not need to be a backstop or arrangements to protect the Northern Ireland situation, but we cannot simply and casually say that these are matters to which we should not have too much regard. I honestly cannot think of another treaty that the UK has ever entered into that it could not exit in such circumstances. We might say that that is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a very unusual thing to be doing.
I want to address the notion that rejecting the deal somehow leads to no deal. I have never accepted that, and it is deeply irresponsible of the Government to pretend that this is a binary choice. No Prime Minister has the right to plunge the country into the chaos of no deal simply because the deal has been rejected, or to run down the negotiations. I believe that that view is shared across the House. There is no majority for no deal. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and others for the amendment to the Finance Bill that the House passed yesterday. It will not formally prevent no deal, but it will give consequences to a non-endorsed deal.
The amendment is also symbolic, in that it shows that the House will not simply sit by and allow a no-deal exit. I do not think that the Prime Minister would attempt that, because I think she understands that a no-deal exit in March this year is not practically viable. I have been to Dover several times to look at the customs arrangements, and it would be impossible to get from the arrangements as they are today to those that would need to be in place on 29 March in the time available. Whatever anyone else says, it would be impossible to do that. There are plenty of other examples. However, if the Prime Minister attempts a no-deal Brexit, we will fight her tooth and nail every inch of the way.
Every Member of this House has a solemn duty consider the deal before us—not the deal that the Prime Minister pretends to have negotiated or the deal that she promises to change between now and when we go through the Lobby, but the text before us. Labour is clear that the deal is not in the national interest. It does not come anywhere near to meeting our tests, it will make the country poorer and more divided and it will not protect jobs and the economy. I say that with sadness, because I have shadowed three different Brexit Secretaries, and the fact that we now have a deal that is so demonstrably not uniting the country and not able to command the support of this House is a tragic waste of the two years that have been available for negotiations and a miserable end to this part of the process. We will have to vote on the deal next Tuesday. After that, it will be time for this House to decide what happens next.

John Bercow: Order. The House is now embarking on the resumption of the debate started on 4 December and interrupted. A lot of Members put in to speak on 9 and 10 December, and the order just agreed allows those who have already spoken the possibility of a second speech. I must tell hon. and right hon. Members that if they wish to speak on any of the next four days  of debate, they should put their names in to my office, and that they cannot rely on notification that was given a month ago. Apart from anything else, the days have changed and my team cannot be expected to anticipate the thought processes of hon. and right hon. Members, so if people would notify my office, that would be greatly appreciated.

Andrew Mitchell: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We have just heard two heavyweight and extremely important speeches from the two Front Benches. I congratulate the new—he is not really new anymore—Brexit Secretary on his grip on the extraordinary complexity of detail that he so evidently demonstrated at the Dispatch Box. I have only rarely troubled the House with my views on Brexit— I think this is only the second time I have done so— and I have approached the whole process on the basis that as Government Back Benchers, it is our job to try to assist the Government in reaching a satisfactory deal. Our job is to support and assist.
We have some special issues in the west midlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) has made it clear that the issue of just-in-time supply is important to us there, but this is not just about cars. It is also about food. Much of the food in this country is not stored in a warehouse, but is on a motorway, so just-in-time supply is a very important matter for us.
I also think the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and the Father of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and indeed the response from the shadow Brexit Secretary, are a very important start to this resumed debate and need to inform our discussions.
It has always been quite clear that it is the Government’s job to propose and Parliament’s job to dispose. Let me be clear: I have great sympathy for the Prime Minister. I served with her in Cabinet and shadow Cabinet for seven and a half years, and I believe that she has a steadfast determination and integrity. No Prime Minister could have given so much time to the House at the Dispatch Box on this issue. However, I have to say that I have been astonished that she would bring back to the House of Commons a deal that she knows she has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting through, and apparently with no plan B. I think this is a matter of very great concern.
The Government are accountable to Parliament. We have had the beginnings of a new constitutional strategy: that it should be the other way around, and somehow the House of Commons should be accountable to the Government. That is not the way we do things. While I was unable to support the amendment last night, because I thought it fettered the Government’s ability for Executive action too much, I did support the amendment to the Business of the House motion this afternoon, because I think the House of Commons now has to be very clear that if the deal does not go through next week, this House of Commons has got to reach some conclusions and, if I may coin a phrase, take back control. It seems to be that it should do so on the basis of what my right  hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and my right hon. and learned Friend the Father of the House were saying.
As of today, I cannot understand what the Government’s strategy is or has been. It has all the appearances of drawing on the strategy pursued by Lord Cardigan at the charge of the Light Brigade in Crimea. Indeed, it does not seem to be a strategy at all. As Sun Tzu, the famous Chinese general, said:
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
The danger with the tactics being pursued was set out very eloquently by the first Brexit Secretary, and they of course relate to the issue of the backstop and of sequencing.
In summary, with the greatest of regret, I am unable to support the Prime Minister in the Lobby next week. Briefly, that is for three reasons. The first is to do with the backstop. The backstop issues have been very well rehearsed. In the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, we had the pleasure of welcoming Arlene Foster to speak, and it was very clear to me that her reservations about the treatment of Northern Ireland on the backstop were extremely difficult.
I would make this point in addition to what has been said already about the position of Northern Ireland. Having now been in this House for nearly 30 years, on and off, I have sat through heartbreaking statements about the situation there, with the violence that so dreadfully afflicted Northern Ireland for so very long and, indeed, that went wider than Northern Ireland. The fact is that there was a hard-won, hard-fought treaty—lodged at the United Nations—which says there shall be no border in Northern Ireland. For me, that is the beginning and the end of the matter.

Gavin Robinson: I do not want to question the sincerity of the comments that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. There are very few references to the border at all in the Belfast agreement, but where there are references, they do not in any way suggest that this decision cannot take place. There is no commitment to open the hard border. There is a commitment to co-operation among our nations—between Northern Ireland and the Republic. There is a commitment to relationships on a north-south basis.
One of the things that is in the Belfast agreement, which is completely absent from this discussion, is that it says in paragraph 12 of strand 2 that any future relationship—or impediment—or regulation or rule can be implemented only when it is agreed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas in the south. That is completely absent from the considerations on or indeed the text of the withdrawal agreement.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but the point I am making is that the absolute importance of an open border in Northern Ireland—indeed, it is enshrined in an internationally lodged treaty—seems to me to be completely unexceptional.
The second reason I cannot support the deal is that, far from settling matters, it enshrines or embeds the conflicts and divisions that have so convulsed our country. It perpetuates, not heals, the deep divisions that have engulfed our country. It leaves us as a rule taker, which  will antagonise and inflame both sides. Those who voted remain will campaign to become rule makers once again, and those who voted to leave will feel that we have not done so and that the result of the referendum has not been fully respected.
The Government present the deal as the compromise that should bind us together; it is, in my view, the worst possible common denominator. It perpetuates the toxic, radioactive afterlife of the referendum. We need look no further than what is said about the deal by the leading proponents and opponents of Brexit on the Government Benches. Consider the eloquent arguments put by my hon. Friends the Members for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and the equally eloquent and passionate arguments put by my right hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Listening to their eloquent, well-argued points against the deal before us, one can see that it will perpetuate the deep divisions.
Thirdly, all of those points are before we start on the political declaration, about which we have heard some astute comments today. We will be out, we will have paid the £39 billion and we will be saddled with the backstop. We can already see how difficult it will be to negotiate and agree the trade and commercial deals with our 27 European neighbours in the European Union. We have heard what the French have said about fisheries. We have heard what the Spanish have said about Gibraltar. We have heard what Greece and Cyprus have said about any precedents set in respect of Turkey. Alas, I cannot support the deal.
So what is to be done? It seems to me that we almost certainly need more time, although the amendment that we passed today makes it clear that the House of Commons expects the Government to address these matters with great urgency. The former Brexit Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, makes the good point that deals in the European Union are normally done up against the clock. I recognise the validity of that point. The much bigger role for Parliament to take, which was set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, is clearly extremely important.
The Government, as the servant of Parliament—not the other way round—need to go back to Brussels, Paris and Berlin and spell out clearly to our friends in the European Union why the deal is unacceptable, in particular the backstop. They should explain that if the Commission persists in this vein, it will sour relations between the European Union and the UK for generations, to our huge mutual disadvantage.
The Government have rightly stepped up planning for no deal, but given the will of the House on this matter, even talk of cliff edges and no deals seems unduly alarmist. It will clearly be in everyone’s interests for a series of deals and preparations to be put in place, however temporary. We must use any extra time to look again at the available options. The shadow Brexit Secretary talked about this. What are the pluses of Norway and Canada—both deals that the EU offered us earlier. Clearly, no money that is not legally, contractually due should be handed over at this point.
If the Prime Minister’s deal is rejected, it will be for Parliament to reach a conclusion on how to proceed. I profoundly hope that we can, because if we are unable to do so and this House cannot reach a resolution on these matters, the possibility of a further referendum will undoubtedly arise—something I believe profoundly to be most undesirable. A large cohort of our constituents will feel that a second referendum tramples on their democratic rights and is an attempt by a complacent establishment to make off with the referendum result. As a matter of fact, I do not think the result would be likely to change in the event of a second referendum.
Parliament must now seek to reach an agreement on how best to proceed. Only if we find ourselves incapable of reaching any agreement should we consider the option of going back to our constituents to seek their further guidance.

Stephen Gethins: Mr Speaker, it feels like déjà vu all over again. We seem to be back to where we started just before Christmas. As the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) rightly pointed out, it seems that nothing has changed, but we hope that we will have a vote, and that it will be meaningful, so that we can get on with finding solutions to the problems with which Parliament is faced.
I think the point was made earlier that part of the problem for MPs, businesses and others is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe anything the Government tell us will definitely happen. We have to feel for those who have had to negotiate their way through this, and for the officials who have had to negotiate on behalf of the UK Parliament. I sincerely hope that Monsieur Barnier is enjoying his birthday today; he deserves to, after two and a half years of “nebulous” arguments, as some might put it. Indeed, the Prime Minister got off very, very lightly when Jean-Claude Juncker referred to her proposals in that way. I think he was just trying to be helpful to the Government.
Those of us on the Scottish National party Benches cannot vote for a deal that will make us poorer, less secure and more isolated, and which will deliver worse public services and a worse future for young people, depriving them of the rights and opportunities that we have enjoyed and taken advantage of. It is timeous that during the biggest crisis in modern times, with a weak and unstable Government in place who are clearly the most incompetent in living memory, “The Scream” is to come soon to the United Kingdom.
We have a Government who are spending money on food and medicine shortages in peacetime, because they have lost control of the situation in this place and beyond. With every day that passes, they show us just what a disaster this is. This disaster is entirely of the Government’s making. This Brexit mess was left to them by the grossly irresponsible Brexiteers, who have had a political lifetime to prepare for this moment, but when the moment came, we found out just how ill-prepared they were. In many ways, those who proposed this in the first place do an utter disservice to cowboys and snake oil salesmen.
This situation will make us poorer. What kind of Government proactively pursue a policy that they know—because their economic analysis tells us—will make us poorer? A hard Brexit will cost £1,600 for every person in Scotland. We know that because the Scottish Government had the decency to produce independent analysis, something the UK Government have pointedly refused to do—and we know why: because they are deeply embarrassed by the situation, as they should be.

Jamie Stone: There is a tendency among those who favour Brexit to think that maybe it would be good for us to tighten our belts, and that a little reduction in income is something we can get over. However, I represent the furthest away part of mainland Britain. I have businesses that will go bust if we have a hard, no-deal Brexit. Their owners will lose their livelihood, as will all the people who work in those businesses. To take forward the hon. Gentleman’s point, surely the ultimate role of Government is to protect those people and protect those businesses? Without enterprise—the little acorns from which mighty oaks grow—this country is going nowhere.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. He represents a rural area with many similarities to my constituency. He will be aware that the Bank of England warned that crashing out would be worse than the 2008 crisis. We know how devastating years of austerity have been for our public services and household incomes. The University of St Andrews found that small businesses will be particularly hard hit, so he is right to make that point. Even the Chancellor recognises that remaining in the European Union is better. We are all paying the penalty for the Tories’ folly and, frankly, extremism in this regard. The EU single market is the world’s largest economic bloc, with half a billion consumers. It is eight times bigger than the United Kingdom, and 40% of Scottish exports go there. It has become very expensive indeed to leave the EU, and the question has to be asked: is it now unaffordable to remain in the United Kingdom?
Other industries will be badly hit as well. The UK, and Scotland in particular, does well out of education and research. Since 2014—we have had no answers about what will come next—Scottish universities and other research institutions have drawn down about £500 million of EU funding, and the UK has done particularly well competitively. I represent some universities; research conducted by those such as St Andrews, Dundee and Abertay through EU funding—I see this daily, as do colleagues elsewhere in the House—will benefit each and every one of us for years to come, and that is before we even start on the financial benefits of membership.
What have the UK Government said in response to the biggest employer in my constituency? Absolutely nothing. That is an abrogation of their responsibility to people who own small businesses, and who work in research, which makes our lives better and improves our healthcare. The same goes for other industries. The Secretary of State mentioned the food and drink sector and talked about having a no-deal Brexit if the agreement was rejected. Extraordinarily, some of his colleagues have actively said that they would like a no-deal Brexit, but the National Farmers Union of Scotland has said:
“It would be nothing short of catastrophic and could have a devastating impact”.
On access to markets and much-needed labour, it said:
“It is becoming clear to NFU Scotland that there is misleading and damaging rhetoric coming from the UK Government…on where the gaps in skills and labour are.”
I hope that the Secretary of State will not mind me saying—I am sure that others will not—that the NFU is not renowned for coming out with strong words. It does so sparingly, not often, so I certainly hope that he will heed those words.
On fishing, which the Secretary of State mentioned, we have consistently argued for being taken out of the common fisheries policy. For years, Conservatives have consistently voted against that proposal in this place: they voted against the Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill, and against our proposed amendments to previous treaties. Now that we are being taken out of the EU, however, with the impact that will have on the markets to which we need access, all of a sudden they are all in favour of a hard Brexit.

Alan Brown: If the backstop is enacted, tariffs will be applied to Scottish fishing exports, but Northern Ireland will be protected by tariff-free access to both the EU and the UK. The Scottish Secretary said that he would resign if special provisions were given to Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Scottish Secretary is not only still in the job, but urging his colleagues to back a deal that disadvantages Scotland?

Stephen Gethins: My hon. Friend is right. It is truly remarkable that the Secretary of State for Scotland is still in a job. He is pursuing a policy that he knows will not only make us poorer, but put Scotland at a competitive disadvantage. I say to our friends from Northern Ireland that we want them to thrive. This has nothing to do with the state of Northern Ireland; it is simply about having a level playing field across these islands. Having a level playing field means that under the agreement, we have access to the markets that Northern Ireland has access to, and it means having EU vessels—

Stephen Kerr: rose—

Stephen Gethins: If the hon. Gentleman can answer the point about why the Secretary of State for Scotland is still in post, or can say whether we will cede waters to EU vessels and place barriers on trade for customers, I would love to hear from him.

Stephen Kerr: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a number of sectors; it is only right to put on the record that NFU Scotland, the Scotch Whisky Association and every other trade body in Scotland is imploring this House to support the Prime Minister’s agreement with the European Union. That is what our constituents and the businesses that employ them expect of all Scottish MPs.

Stephen Gethins: It is good to hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, which he makes well and honestly, but it is extraordinary, and a shame, that many of his colleagues—some of whom are in the Chamber—were not listening to him. If he cannot even win over his colleagues, what  hope does he have of winning over everybody else? There is almost nobody on his entire half of the Government Benches—extraordinary stuff—but I have the greatest respect for the courage and indefatigability he demonstrates.
This Government’s disrespect agenda has turned the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom upside down. The UK Government have imposed legislation on the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly against overwhelming opposition from across the parties—from not just the Labour party but the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru. The Scottish Parliament rejected the deal by 92 votes to 29, leaving the Conservative party in utter isolation in Scotland, as it has been for decades.
As the Government turn the constitutional settlement upside down, without reference to this place and ignoring the Scotland Act 1998, let me paraphrase the great Winnie Ewing—Madame Ecosse—who said that it was claimed once upon a time that Britannia ruled the waves; now, Britannia simply waives the rules. We heard howls of protest in this place today when Parliament took back control, but Parliament did the Government a favour. The Government have wasted all this time, but now they will be forced to come back within three days, not because of something they did, but because Parliament reasserted itself, and you, Mr Speaker, did the right thing today in allowing the vote. That is incredibly important as we reach this crunch time. One cannot do this kind of thing in the European Union.
I have found utterly baffling and really quite depressing the lack of knowledge about the European institutions in this place. The EU is made up of independent and sovereign states, which reach agreement and compromise in what is truly a partnership of equals. There is democratic oversight from the European Parliament—Ministers here have attempted to stifle democratic oversight—and there is a Court, not to impose anything on anybody but to resolve disagreements, which will arise in any democracy with 28 independent and sovereign member states.
I am not entirely sure what future arbitration mechanism the Government propose. I see from their agreement that they propose a role for the European Court of Justice. I welcome that, but it is a bit too little, too late, and it has been met by a wall of opposition from their own Members, who do not seem to understand what the Government are arguing for.
As I set out what the European Union is all about, it strikes me that despite all those who try to compare it with the United Kingdom and ask whether, if Scotland becomes independent, we want to be in the EU, no one can tell me in what way they are similar. Can anybody compare the EU with the UK? Silence. It is not possible to compare them. To do so would be to disregard every treaty, and the fact that the EU is a club for independent and sovereign states. I am astonished, since Government Members persistently make that argument, that nobody can tell me what the difference is. That argument is almost as dead and defunct as the Prime Minister’s deal.
Let me move on to a human element. The way EU nationals have been treated is a disgrace. No Member should be complicit in what is being done in our name. That is nowhere clearer than in the appalling treatment of our friends and neighbours who happen to hold  passports from a different European country. They contribute so much to our homes and our NHS, and they contribute financially so much more than they take away.
On a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—as well as, to be fair, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) during Prime Minister’s questions today—does the Minister agree that it is deeply offensive to be asking those who already pay their taxes and so much in contributions to pay £65 each to remain in their homes? Would anybody on the Government Benches like to defend that? Anybody? I didn’t think so. Would anyone want to defend the disgrace of charging people £65 to remain in their homes?

Stewart McDonald: rose—

Stephen Gethins: Since the Government cannot stand up to defend themselves, I will give way to my hon. Friend instead.

Stewart McDonald: Does it not offend natural justice that people are being made to pay that fee to maintain rights that they already have and enjoy, yet they were excluded from the vote itself and have played no part in the democratic mechanisms that have brought us to this point? The Government have done everything to isolate them and are doing everything to isolate them further. Would it not show an element of good will, at least, if they cancelled the £65 fee?

Stephen Gethins: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is the very least the Government could do.

Drew Hendry: My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Is the situation not even worse, because these people—our friends and neighbours, our colleagues, people we depend on in our communities and throughout Scotland, have been asked—even when they have been here for decades, to apply to pay to stay in their own homes?

Stephen Gethins: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point about EU citizens on behalf of his constituents. Truly there is shame on this Government for the way they treat our neighbours and fellow citizens. They are whipping up a frenzy over immigration and those seen as outsiders. The Government have disgraced themselves, and, following the vote of no confidence, are no longer fit for office.

Douglas Ross: rose—

Stephen Gethins: If the hon. Member can defend the Government’s position, which they themselves seem incapable of defending, I will give way to him, although he could not do so when I challenged him earlier.

Douglas Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman defend the SNP’s policy? In July 2014, in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum, Nicola Sturgeon spoke about her “common sense position” on this issue. She said:
“There are 160,000 EU nationals…living in Scotland… If Scotland was outside Europe, they would lose the right to stay here.”
Does he defend that?

Stephen Gethins: It is extraordinary that the hon. Member cannot engage with any of the arguments or defend his own Government. Indeed, he cannot even vote for his own Government. The way the First Minister came out the day after the referendum to give that reassurance to EU nationals and the way the Scottish Government have said they will waive the fees of public sector workers which as yet the UK Government have not had the decency to do—I hope they will change their mind—should put each and every Government Member to shame. In the independence referendum, as in Scottish Parliament and local authority elections, those EU citizens—our friends and neighbours—have the franchise, they have the vote, and they are treated with decency, which is a lot more than can be said here.

Philippa Whitford: Everyone will know by now that my husband is German and that we have many friends who are EU citizens. With many EU citizens who have been here for decades being refused permanent right to remain and they or their children being refused citizenship, does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about the money? There should not be an application. Even a registration would suggest something different. An application implies that someone can be refused.

Stephen Gethins: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She frequently makes very good points on that very matter. This goes to the heart of what kind of society we want to build and how we treat our friends and neighbours. Do we want that isolationism, or do we have the decency to treat our friends and neighbours appropriately?

Ian Blackford: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech touching on the human elements and our responsibility to our friends and neighbours, but there is also the fundamental point about our rights as EU citizens. Could anyone defend the current position? He worked in Europe for many years. We today have the opportunity to work in 28 member states. How is it right that if the Government get their way UK citizens will have the right to work in only one state and will be excluded from the opportunity to work in Europe which he, I and many others had? It is a disgrace that that right is being taken away from our young people.

Stephen Gethins: That is an excellent point. I spent years benefiting from freedom of movement on the Erasmus programme. I know that many other Members who are present did as well, and that it has benefited our friends, our relatives and many of our constituents. Who are we to deprive the next generations of the benefits that we have had—the rights and opportunities that we have had? It is utterly shameful to be depriving our young people of freedom of movement, from which many of us across the House have benefited, and which benefits everyone without fear or favour. That is yet another failure.
Then there is security, which is a basic priority of the UK Government and of any Government anywhere in the world. This is a Government who are, proactively and consciously, making us less safe, isolating us from key partners elsewhere in Europe and drawing away from key planks such as the European arrest warrant. According to the Royal United Services Institute,
“the full benefits of membership—combining both shared decision-making and operational effectiveness—cannot be replicated”
by the deal that we are seeing today.
Nowhere has the disregard for security—and for the peace process—been seen more clearly than in Northern Ireland. There has been an utter disregard for it throughout the debate, although that is not the Government’s fault, and it is not the fault of one or two Ministers who argued for Remain. The disregard shown during the EU referendum and subsequently was appalling as well, especially given that the European Union has been a key partner for peace in Northern Ireland for decades.
Let me now, briefly and finally, say a little something about the Labour party. We have the weakest and the least stable Government in living memory. They cannot even defend their own record. They cannot even defend the basics. They are actively making us poorer and less secure—proactively—and at great cost as well. All that the Government have going for them—and I say this with great respect to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who was very good today and always is, as are many other Labour Members—is an exceptionally weak Opposition Front Bench.
I want to work with the Opposition Front Bench, and we work together very well. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has been a champion for his cause. However, the Leader of the Opposition appears to have washed his hands of any kind of leadership when it comes to this issue—the biggest issue to have faced his party. There is no such thing as a “jobs first” Brexit, but there is such a thing as a jobs-destroying Brexit.
We want to work with Labour, and the House should not just take my word for it. Last night, as I was preparing for today’s debate, I was contacted by a member of the Labour party who lives in Crail, in my constituency. She sent me a letter which she has sent today to the Labour party’s international policy committee. I know that all Labour Members will have read it, but I will read some of it out for the benefit of the House. She wrote that
“if there is a general election, or a second referendum, the Labour Party should make it clear that being in the EU is in the UK’s best interests, and that it is Parliament’s duty to ensure that we stay.”
That did not come from the Scottish National party, or from my friends among the local Liberal Democrats, or even from the Conservatives or the Green party, but from my own local Labour party. I always like to say that there is a great deal of sense in North East Fife, but apparently there is even a great deal of sense in the North East Fife Labour party, and I hope that its members are listening.

Stewart McDonald: What my hon. Friend may not know is that a Labour spokesperson said after Prime Minister’s Question Time that in theory Labour could change its mind and be against Brexit in any future snap election. Does he agree that a Schrödinger's Brexit is not exactly a step forward for the official Opposition?

Stephen Gethins: As usual, my hon. Friend has made an excellent point.
I appeal to the Labour party. We have a weak Government, and an absolute crisis is facing us. I have worked with many Labour Members, and I know that many of them are pained by the position that has been taken by the Leader of the Opposition in particular. They behave honestly and decently, and they make a fine contribution, as has been evident today. I appeal to them to join with the SNP in the short time that we have left, because there are alternatives, and other Members and Ministers have made that point. As the shadow Secretary of State and others made clear, we must revoke article 50 or seek an extension. That is the only sensible course of action left to us, because the current situation will not play out sensibly. Although helpful, no amount of motions requiring a response within three days can help us beyond that point. It will be embarrassing for the Prime Minister, but it is a small price to pay.
Over two years ago, the Scottish Government set out a compromise that they devised with members of other parties, with experts—we still like to listen to experts—and others, but that compromise was rejected by the UK Government without them considering it or coming back on anything. This Government have comprehensively failed on the biggest issue to face a post-war Government, so this Parliament must take back control of the situation. It also means that we are now in a place, after almost three years, whereby when we get some kind of final solution such is the huge impact that we must put it back to the people in another referendum to let them sign it off. I know that that certainly has support across the SNP Benches and, increasingly, among those on the Government Benches as well. Given the time that the Government have wasted since 2016, that is our only reasonable option. No deal must be ruled out. Billions of pounds have been totally unnecessarily wasted. We have not struggled for metaphors for the Government’s failures over the recent past, but a ferry company without any boats is up there with the best of them.
Brexit has no redeeming features—none. We are almost three years on from the referendum, and I believe now even more than I did then—I was strong for remain—that Brexit is the wrong thing to do and that nothing good whatsoever will come out of it. I want everyone across these islands to thrive, but what underlines the current set-up is that the UK is broken and that we probably need to move on to a new relationship. Every one of Scotland’s neighbours—similar-sized countries—is more successful, fairer and has a more equal and respectful relationship with the UK Government than Scotland does. Our close neighbours in Scandinavia have a healthy and respectful economic and political relationship, even though not all those independent states are members of the EU. That is a healthier and better state to be in. I note that none of the 50 states that have gained independence from the UK since the second world war has made as much of a mess as the UK Government have made of this situation, because they had a much more straightforward way through.
Right now, however, we must focus on sorting out the almighty mess that the Tories have left us in. The Government have had their chance, but they have blown it over the past two and a half years. All that they have achieved is to drive up support for the EU across the other member states. Support for the EU in Ireland is at 92%, meaning that those of our near neighbours who  believe in leaving the EU are giving the flat-earthers a wee run for their money, and they are even giving those who believe that the Prime Minister still runs a strong and stable Government a bit of a run for their money. We have been sold this nonsense for far too long. We are stuck on a sinking ship, and this Parliament must take back control. We need a common-sense solution, and this deal is not it.

Andrea Jenkyns: In May last year, when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I believe that I was the first person on the payroll to resign to fight for Brexit. I had deep concerns about how Brexit was being handled, and I felt compelled to resign for the Brexit that I believed in and the Brexit that my constituents and our country voted for. I was the first to step down, but I was not the last. We have seen talented, committed and hard-working colleagues on both sides of the Brexit debate resign because of numerous concerns.
Our reasons for standing down may vary, but one thing that we all have in common is our belief that this deal is a bad deal for our country. Be they remain or leave, I respect all those colleagues who bravely stood by their convictions and made the principled decision to fight for what they believe in, but the fight is not yet over. The Prime Minister speaks of a deal that will unite our country, a goal that no doubt we all desire, but the division we have seen is of the Prime Minister’s own making. Her desire to get a deal at any cost, prolonging “Project Fear”, and her decision to postpone last month’s withdrawal agreement vote were mistakes—and that decision has only led to more division at a time when our country should be uniting behind the democratic decision to leave the EU.
On 23 June 2016 the question was clear: should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU? The British people spoke and decided overwhelmingly to leave.

Chris Leslie: Not overwhelmingly.

Andrea Jenkyns: Well, I think 1 million more people is quite a big clue, actually.
It was never supposed to be this way. At the referendum there was no third option: the choice was either leave or remain. The referendum did not mention a half in, half out or worst of both worlds choice for our country’s future. The referendum question said nothing about giving the EU £39 billion of taxpayers’ money and getting nothing in return, the referendum question said nothing about a continued role for the European Court of Justice after 2019, and the referendum question said nothing about an Irish backstop and restricting our ability to sign new trade deals. This deal is a sell-out of those who voted to leave. It is therefore impossible for the House to unite around this deal, and it is impossible for our country to unite around a bad deal.
At the referendum two years ago the British people spoke and our objective was clear: as elected Members of Parliament we were tasked with delivering Brexit. Some Members thought the British people would deliver a different result and would vote remain in the referendum,  but they did not, and this is the problem: some Members do not accept the result of the referendum and are using every opportunity to thwart the will of the British people.
It is a sad period in our great Parliament’s history when MPs try to overturn the democratic mandate; that is completely unacceptable, After all, it was Parliament that gave the British people the opportunity to have the referendum in the first place. Our great British parliamentary model has been a beacon that has been used as a template in parliamentary democracies across the globe for centuries. Let us not insult our greatest institution, or forget that we were elected by the British electorate. We are all democrats, so let us respect the result: our British people have spoken and it is time for us now to deliver. Our people decided to take back control and said we should leave. [Interruption.] They are still British citizens.
This was a vote dictated not by fear, but by hope: hope of a different tomorrow and a new path; hope of a new system not restricted by the EU’s institutions; and hope that once again our people will feel that they have a true stake in our country’s future. The chance of a global Britain was promised, but that promise has now been broken.
We must leave, and we need a clean Brexit and to trade under WTO rules if necessary. The US and China sell billions of pounds’ worth of exports each year to the EU using WTO rules; the UK can do the same if necessary. As the EU’s largest trading partner and with a deficit of £95 billion in trade in goods, we should have been negotiating from a position of strength, but the Prime Minister’s determination to get a deal at any cost gave the EU the upper hand. The Prime Minister showed her hand too soon, and now the EU has called her bluff.
I say that it is time we put the ball firmly in our court and take the upper hand in these negotiations. The EU fears our leaving on WTO terms as it will give Britain the competitive advantage if we do, so let us fully embrace a clean Brexit; I have no doubt that the EU will come running back to us at the eleventh hour. But besides being a good negotiating tool, leaving on WTO terms is not something we should fear.

Paul Masterton: My hon. Friend talks about the potential advantages of our leaving on WTO rules. Can she explain why, if WTO rules are just fine for trading with our largest trading partner, it is so necessary that we are able to do trade deals on our own terms with other, much smaller economies?

Andrea Jenkyns: I believe in a global Britain, as the Prime Minister said in her statement several times, and it is important that, in trading with both smaller nations and larger nations, Britain is free to chart its own path in the world and to forge new trade deals with whoever.

Ross Thomson: My hon. Friend will not be aware of it, but, in evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs today, Ryan Scatterty of Thistle Seafoods in the north-east of Scotland, representing seafood processors, said that the growing market for his industry is in places like Australia. The industry currently trades on WTO rules, as he confirmed to the Committee. If the industry can do that with Australia, surely it can do it with the EU.

Andrea Jenkyns: I was in Kenya with some of our colleagues back in July. Kenya sells us lots of flowers, which have a short shelf-life, and it currently trades with us on WTO rules. We have no problems there, so I agree with my hon. Friend.

Stephen Kerr: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrea Jenkyns: I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then I will continue.

Stephen Kerr: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would desire a free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union?

Andrea Jenkyns: As I said earlier, we have seen how the EU negotiates—look at how it negotiated with Greece—and it usually comes back at the eleventh hour. It would be great to have a deal with the EU, but I do not agree with having a bad deal. The Prime Minister’s mantra is that no deal is better than a bad deal, and in that case I would rather leave on WTO rules.

David Linden: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Andrea Jenkyns: No. I need to make some progress.
It is time that we put the ball firmly in our court and take the upper hand in these negotiations. The EU fears our leaving on WTO terms, as it would give Britain a competitive advantage, so let us fully embrace a clean Brexit. Leaving on WTO terms is not something we should fear.
There has been some concern about engineering firms being disproportionately affected by a clean WTO Brexit. However, the heads of firms such as Dyson, JCB and Northern Ireland’s Wrightbus support Brexit. Car companies can withstand a 10% tariff on sales into the EU and a 4.5% tariff on components from the EU because they have benefited from a 15% depreciation in sterling. Border checks on components from the EU will be unnecessary, counterproductive for EU exporters and illegal under WTO rules, which prohibit unnecessary checks.
A better deal was available and is still available. The Brexit deal was never only a choice between the Prime Minister’s deal and reverting to WTO rules, but if that is the choice, let us go on WTO rules.
This place is often divided by its very nature, but one thing that unites us is our belief that the British people are remarkable and can succeed, no matter the obstacle. Our great history shows that we can overcome any hurdle and that we always triumph. This deal is a submission, and the British people should never accept a bad deal. This deal is remain masquerading as leave, and it is time that entrenched leave Members started believing in Britain and respected the result of the referendum.
Instead of fear, we need to see forward planning and a vision for the future—a future away from the EU—that the whole country can get behind. I am hugely optimistic about our country’s future. There may be difficult times ahead, so we need a leader who can take this great country out into the world and start trading freely around the globe, and this deal simply does not allow us to do that.
In her Lancaster House speech, the Prime Minister said:
“A Global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries from outside the European Union too… the great prize for this country—the opportunity ahead—is to use this moment to build a truly Global Britain. A country that reaches out to old friends and new allies alike. A great, global, trading nation. And one of the firmest advocates for free trade anywhere in the world.”
That was a vision for Brexit that many of us had, but the Prime Minister’s deal will not allow it to happen. I therefore urge colleagues on both sides of the House to reject her deal. Let us stand up for democracy, let us restore faith among our electorate and let us now deliver on our promises to our great British public.

Chris Leslie: It is nearly two months since the 585 pages of the withdrawal agreement were published, and it is already gathering a little bit of dust. As we have already heard, despite deferring the vote and pretending otherwise over Christmas, and ringing up Mr Barnier or Mr Juncker on Christmas eve or new year’s eve saying “Please can we have a negotiation?”, the Prime Minister has found that, in that famous phrase, nothing has changed. So here we are yet again facing a Government who are determined to prevaricate and kick the can further down the road.
Earlier today, having seen the Government defer this issue previously, Members realised that once the Prime Minister’s plan was defeated there would potentially be 21 days, and then perhaps another seven days, before the Commons would be allowed to determine what happens next. We had the ridiculous spectacle of the Government objecting to that and saying, “No, Members must not be allowed to vote on moving things forward.” That prevarication is extremely dangerous. It is dangerous to put political calculations above the country’s best interests when we could crash out with no deal on 29 March.
I am glad, Mr Speaker, that you withstood the attempts by a loud and vociferous minority in this place to thwart Members and prevent them from having a say. You have in the past made decisions and rulings with which I have disagreed, but on this occasion allowing parliamentarians to express their views was the right thing to do. Indeed, that proved to be the case, because a majority of MPs said, “No, we don’t wish to wait 21 or 28 days, till the middle of February; we want to get on with things.” The time has now come to decide. The House has instructed Ministers, if the Prime Minister’s deal is rejected on Tuesday, to come forward with a motion three sitting days later, which would be Monday 21 January. We could then make some decisions.
By the way, I do not address my remarks on prevarication only to Ministers. I gently say to those on the Labour Front Bench that they, too, should stop prevaricating on the question of Brexit. The time has come for the Labour party to make some decisions and stop this notion of constructive ambiguity. I know that this complex sequenceology has been constructed to try to avoid having to confront these issues, but the politics should come second to the national interest. We cannot afford to gamble at this stage, given how close we are to 29 March.
The withdrawal agreement is wrong for the country, as is the political declaration that accompanies it. The withdrawal agreement ignores 80% of our economy, the service sector. It might not necessarily provide good pictures for the television cameras, unlike queuing ferries at Dover and so forth, but the service sector is very much where the UK excels, whether in legal, professional, media, creative or financial services. Not only do many of our constituents work in those services, but they provide the engine for the revenues needed for our public services—for our NHS, schools, local authorities and social care. If we ignore the risk of diminished prospects for those sectors in our economy, we will be facilitating a further decade of austerity to come. That is why I say to all Members, across all parties, that we cannot just kick the can down the road and pretend that this will not matter.
The problem with the withdrawal agreement is that it is full of warm promises about what might be agreed, but it does not actually agree many, many things. It contains no agreement on data or energy policy. It says that we will establish a process on transport policy, and that we will talk about the Erasmus programme to allow students to study throughout Europe. It does not resolve the security situation or the question of Euratom. It fudges the question of the Northern Ireland border still further. The withdrawal agreement does not actually settle many of these things.
What is worse is that the political declaration is non-binding on the parties involved, which means that it amounts to little more than warm words. The Government got themselves into this ridiculous situation by embarking on the article 50 process without a commitment that, by the end of it, we would have not just the divorce arrangement settled, but, in particular, a settled plan for an EU-UK trade deal. That should have been part of the negotiation framework.
For us now to be asked to leave on 29 March without having settled our future relationship with Europe is highly irresponsible. Ministers may say, “Well, we intend to do it this way”. European officials may also say that they intend to do it that way, but, of course, they are here today and gone tomorrow, and commitments that are made by those particular individuals will not necessarily bind us on what happens to the UK. Therefore, we will not have the EU-UK arrangement settled down by the time that we are asked to leave, and anything could happen in that process.
There are many difficulties with that, because of course if we do not have the EU-UK trade deal buttoned down, our prospects of doing deals with the rest of the world will have to wait. Other countries, such as Japan, Singapore, Canada, America and others, will say, “We may be interested in doing a trade deal with you, but we would like to see what your relationship is with the EU first. Will you be allowed to reduce tariffs or not?” That arrangement could take two, three, four or five years—an ever unknown amount of time. The Canada trade deal with the EU took seven years.
The idea that the poor old Secretary of State for International Trade is raring to go with all these new deals across the world is, of course, fantasy. That is the delusion of Brexit that so many people are operating under, but the real world is beginning to bite. Businesses know it, and increasingly our constituents see it, and they want the right to determine their own future.
The withdrawal agreement and this settlement would end the free movement of people across Europe. I regard that as a great tragedy. It is a shame that we have not stood up and spoken out for the benefits of free movement. We should remember that free movement is reciprocal, so just as we restrict European movement into the UK, we will potentially be sacrificing UK citizens’ right of movement to the rest of Europe. Let us think of the future generations, their work opportunities, their study opportunities, the freedom we enjoy, the  2 million British people who already reside across the rest of Europe, and the uncertainties that this will create—and for what? What is this great harm? It is a ridiculous proposition, and that alone would be a reason to reject the withdrawal agreement.
There is also the notion that the agreement will allow us to control taxpayers’ money, but we know that we will lose a great deal of money because of the effect on the economy. Members do not need to take my word for that; the Treasury, the Government and the Prime Minister herself have articulated how we will be worse off by going down this pathway. We will be controlling a diminished amount of money. We will be paying out £39 billion, and possibly even more during the transition arrangement, in exchange for what? There is no commitment on a trade with the EU deal going forward, which I regard as a fundamental failure.
The Prime Minister has made a number of strategic errors all the way along this process, such as setting down red lines and interpreting the outcome of the referendum in her own way—for instance, on whether it was to do with the single market or the customs union, when, of course, none of that was on the ballot paper. She has also failed to take the temperature of Parliament. She did not exactly read the runes of the House of Commons from the beginning, and now she faces this situation. Under this arrangement the UK could be left in limbo in this situation for the next four years, and we would not even have a seat around the table to shape the rules to which we would be subject—it is a nonsense. Britain has had a fantastic ability to shape the rule-making arrangements of an entire continent—the whole European Union—for many years, and many of the rules and regulations that we have chosen to adopt have been generated by the United Kingdom. Some of the best ideas that we have had have shaped EU policies, and it is a great shame that we will be moving away from that.
Whether it is because of the failures of the withdrawal agreement or the wishlist presented in the form of the political declaration, which is an almost meaningless document, this House has to reject the Prime Minister’s proposal when it comes to the vote next Tuesday. The House must quickly realise that we have to extend article 50 at the very least, if not suspend or revoke the article 50 process, while we put this question back to the British public so that they can decide, in the full knowledge of the facts and the economic and social impact.
A people’s vote is a solution whose time has come, and increasing numbers of Members on both sides of this House are realising that it is the way ahead. I strongly hope that the Labour Front Benchers will also realise that the people’s vote has the support and is the preference of the vast majority not just of Labour party members, but of Labour supporters and voters. Now  is the time to decide. We cannot afford to prevaricate  any longer.

Jonathan Djanogly: If the referendum were rerun today, everything that I have seen over the last two years—not least as a member of the Brexit Select Committee—would still lead me to vote to stay within the European Union. Having said that, I do respect the result of the referendum as a valid expression of the will of the people, but to me this means leaving the EU in a way that secures the best economic deal available with the EU and that maximises the potential for retaining the close cultural, educational, justice and security relationships that we have developed with our closest partners and allies. The referendum was “in or out”, but it did not, as some wrongly insist, dictate the terms of our leaving, nor the terms of our future relationship with the EU once out. Both of those questions were left for Parliament to resolve, and that is what MPs must now do. It is for this primary reason that I would oppose a second referendum, which would be indeterminate, complicated to implement and very divisive.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that the Prime Minister spoke to 200 MPs in one of the rooms in Portcullis House last night. Again, she ruled out a second referendum, but she said that if the deal does not get through, there are two options left: a no-deal Brexit or no Brexit at all with the revocation of article 50. Businesses up and down the country are going to have to start thinking about how they react once the deal is voted down. Will the hon. Gentleman venture his view on what he would do in that scenario?

Jonathan Djanogly: I was at that meeting, which I thought was a good expression of joint interests from all parties to the Prime Minister. I hope that we saw within that meeting the start of what could become a consensus, moving forward after what might be a defeat next week. Having said that, I do not discount a second referendum, as the Prime Minister did not. I am simply saying that I think it would be a very poor second best and a sign that this place had failed, but I do not dismiss the possibility.
As for the Prime Minister’s deal, on balance I find it to be a fair one and practical in the overall circumstances of the hand that we had to play; it has my support. To criticise the deal as not being as good as what we have with the EU now is a facile argument, if only because the EU was never, ever going to allow us to leave on the same or better terms than apply to the remaining 27 countries, no matter how many German cars we bought. The deal was always going to have to represent a compromise of views within the Conservative party, within Parliament and certainly with the EU. The deal reached does not represent my optimum position, but no one was ever going to get everything they wanted.
That is not to say that I do not share some of the criticisms of the deal, including many that can be found in the Brexit Committee’s report on the deal. For instance, despite assurances from two Secretaries of State, the financial settlement has not been included in the withdrawal agreement as being wholly or even partially conditional on securing a binding future relationship. To my mind, this has been a failure of negotiation that will undoubtedly reduce our leverage in future relationship negotiations due to start in March 2019 if we have a deal. Furthermore,  the lack of detail in the future relationship political declaration means that there will still be another cliff edge as we reach July 2020, when we will need to decide either to head towards the backstop or to extend the implementation period, and there will still be a level of uncertainty for business as to the final form of the deal, although much less so than if we crash out with no deal.
So, on balance, we should take the deal on offer. The mess and upset that would be caused by a hard Brexit is unacceptable. Yes, the legalities can be brought to the fore on things like the backstop, but the legal cart should not be leading the commercial horse.

Norman Lamb: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might agree with me that the deal is very different from what people were promised during the referendum by those leading the Brexit campaign. If he does agree, is there not a case for thinking that it is undemocratic not to allow the people to have a say now, given that what is on offer is so different from what they were promised?

Jonathan Djanogly: I would not argue with the right hon. Gentleman about promises being made during the referendum campaign that could now be disputed, but the same could be said for a lot of general elections that we have had in the past. To say that elections or referendums are discounted because of what people maintained during the course of them would not, I am afraid, be a line that I would take.
Furthermore, if the deal is rejected by this House, from my point of view I will do everything I can to ensure that we do not leave the EU without a deal, and, to my mind, the next best thing after the Prime Minister’s option would be the Norway-plus alternative. If the Government’s deal fails to pass this House, and assuming that the Opposition’s no-confidence motion fails, I hope that we shall then start to find a new tone of cross-party working. We shall need a degree more honesty in how we describe Brexit issues, where in reality no one is going to win—not us and not the EU. We have the Labour Front Bench changing its position; we have the Brexiteers shouting, “Sell-out”, at every initiative while offering nothing as an alternative; and we have a Government who have frequently made soothing hard Brexit noises to Brexiteers while lining up a deal that clearly has a trajectory of close regulatory alignment to the single market and some form of customs arrangement. I do hope that the Government get their deal, but if not, it will surely be because they have unsuccessfully attempted to be all things to all men.

Gareth Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the deal does not pass this House next Tuesday, agreement to extend article 50 will be an urgent priority for the Government to bring forward a measure on?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. If the deal is rejected and we start looking at other possibilities—on a more consensual cross-party basis, I hope—then clearly whatever route we take leads to the deadline, and an answer to that may well have to be to extend the article 50 period. I am very pleased, looking back over a year ago now, that some of us in this place decided to ensure that the Government were not able to restrict the timing of the article 50 period, and so that will be a possibility.
Rather than add to the fudge, let me explain why and how, if this deal fails, Members of all parties should coalesce around a Norway-plus option, and why the “plus” element—being in a customs union with the EU—is a good thing. First, most business wants a customs union because it allows free movement of almost half our exports between Union members without tariffs and checks and paperwork. Opponents say that this would stop the UK forging its own trade agreements, but, to my mind, the benefits of the EU customs union are far greater. We must keep in mind that the EU has some 250 FTAs with some 70 countries, and the UK plan is to “roll over” those deals, meaning that, at best, we would have the same—not better—terms as the EU with one third of the world’s countries. There would be no advantage of being outside the EU. That is, of course, assuming that we are able to make those deals happen, which we know is proving somewhat elusive, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) explained.
Secondly, the chances of negotiating better FTAs as a country of 50 million, rather than a bloc of 500 million, is realistically and simply not how it normally works. Thirdly, there will be significant costs of going it alone on FTAs, from being forced to take US genetically modified crops to issuing visas to countries, as currently requested by Australia and India. Fourthly, FTAs take a long time to negotiate—an average of seven years.
Fifthly, the claim that Commonwealth countries will prioritise us over the EU is unrealistic, not least considering that the Czech Republic currently has four times the trade with New Zealand than we do and that the Swiss do much more trade with India than we do. Sixthly, “most favoured nation” clauses in our rolled-over EU agreements and the integrated nature of world trade will significantly reduce our ability to get commercial advantage. Finally, high levels of foreign input into our manufactured goods will create huge problems under the so-called rules of origin.
In conclusion, my view is that we shall be better off with a customs union arrangement with the EU, and the deal on offer presents the best opportunity of securing future prosperity for our companies and employment for our people. We should support it.

Vincent Cable: One problem of having extended debate and resumption of debate is that we are getting a lot of repetition and recycling of arguments that we have heard many times before. For that reason, I want to focus on one specific issue, which is the idea of World Trade Organisation rules and exactly what they mean. The term “WTO rules” is used casually in every pub, and in every radio interview I encounter, but I suspect that many of the people who use it are not at all clear what it means.
Before getting into the detail of that, I will make one general point about no deal, which was brought out rather brilliantly by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who got to the heart of this very well. He exposed the fact that no deal is actually a choice. It is not just something that happens; it is the conscious choice of a Government who could choose to revoke article 50, as the Father of the House keeps reminding us. That may be a difficult  decision and a very unpopular one, but article 50 could be revoked, and by choosing not to revoke it, the Government will be choosing to have no deal, with all its catastrophic—or so they tell us—consequences.
Let me narrow down to the specific issue of what the WTO rules would be if we found ourselves in a no-deal world. The basis on which I speak is that many years ago, long before I came into the House, I was part of a small community of international trade specialists and got involved in negotiating the so-called Uruguay round and then the Doha round as part of the World Trade Organisation—or, as it was then called, the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I saw at first hand the way in which the WTO system operates. I realise that there is no longer just a small community of anoraks, which is what we were. A large number of people now consider themselves experts on trade policy, but the glibness with which the term “WTO rules” is applied leads me to believe that there are probably not too many anoraks, because there are some very real difficulties in applying WTO rules.
The World Trade Organisation is to trade what the United Nations is to peace. It has some admirable principles, but I think most Members, and certainly those on the Government Benches, would consider it seriously negligent of us to make our national defence dependent solely on the rules of the United Nations. Rules have to be enforced, and they have to be effective.
We need to look back on what the World Trade Organisation is and what it is trying to achieve. In the post-war world, it has established one central principle, and actually it is not free trade; it is something called the most favoured nation—MFN—rule. It is about non-discrimination. It has one big waiver, which is to allow common markets and customs unions such as the European Union to function on the basis of total free trade within themselves, but its whole objective is to stop the proliferation of bilateral agreements.
Such agreements were common in the inter-war period, and they are becoming fashionable again. Many people who are in favour of Brexit say that they are the whole purpose of trade policy. Those people want deals with numerous countries, but the whole purpose of the WTO was to stop this happening. It was supposed to be a multilateral organisation. In that capacity, the WTO achieved a great deal. It cut tariffs to single digits on most manufactures except agriculture, and it got rid of quantitative restrictions, except for the quotas that still exist for agriculture and textiles. It also began to establish a set of rules around intellectual property and various other intangible non-tariff barriers regarding, for example, government procurement.
The problem is that the WTO reached the zenith of its authority about 10 years ago, when the Doha negotiations collapsed and multilateral trade negotiations ceased to make any progress. This was largely due to  the obstruction of India, Brazil and, to some extent, the United States. The European Union was actually the main liberalising force, but anyway, the negotiations collapsed and the WTO’s authority is now much less strong. Where does that leave us in terms of what the WTO rules now mean? If they mean anything, it is the application of the rule of law. In the WTO, the rule of law operates through dispute panels, which in theory have the same force as the European Court of Justice in settling disputes. It baffles me that Conservative Members  are so affronted by the intrusiveness of the European Court of Justice, because it was designed to achieve precisely what the dispute panels of the WTO were designed to do.
However, like the United Nations, the WTO is not a desperately effective body, and many of its rulings are not carried through. Because it is a weak organisation, it is possible for big countries to bully weak ones. A celebrated case some years ago involved a trade dispute between the United States and Costa Rica—over men’s underpants, as it happens—and Costa Rica won the dispute. The United States felt deeply humiliated and refused to comply. A face-saving compromise was eventually reached, but that dispute sowed the ill feeling that in due course led to President Trump, who has made it absolutely clear that he does not believe in the World Trade Organisation. He does not want it to work, and he is doing everything he possibly can to stop it working, including not sending judges to sit on the dispute panels. It is now a very weak organisation. If we were to crash out of the EU under WTO rules and found ourselves in a dispute with the United States—or, indeed, with the European Union, which we had left—we would not be able to rely on the WTO dispute panels to settle the dispute in an orderly manner.
That is one of the WTO’s central weaknesses. Another is that, throughout its history, it has been overwhelmingly concerned with getting rid of tariffs. The main problem in international trade these days is the divergence of standards, which is of course why we originally entered the single market under Lord Cockfield and Mrs Thatcher. That was perfectly logical. If we are trying to liberalise trade, we attack the non-tariff practices that obstruct trade, hence the harmonisation of rules on mutual recognition. However, the WTO does not do that. It has very weak rules covering government procurement and all the barriers that are dealt with in the European Union through the rules on state aid, competition and the like. That, in turn, means that there is very little in the WTO that covers the services sector, which, as we have been reminded, accounts for 80% of our economy. We have a fair degree of liberalisation in the services trade in the European Union, which benefits our high-tech industries, financial services and so on. No such arrangement exists in the WTO. Those sectors are completely unprotected.
Finally, and not least, the fact is that some tariffs remain, and they are on agriculture. We have the problem that if we leave the European Union with no deal, on WTO terms, the European Union’s tariffs on dairy products, lamb and various other items, which are quite high, immediately kick in. The problem with that, as we discovered when we had the foot and mouth epidemic, is that if we cannot export, prices crash. The only logical response from the farming industry, in order to maintain the value of the stock, is to slaughter large herds. This will happen. We know there is a paper at the moment in the agriculture Department—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—setting out a plan for slaughtering a third of all British sheep in order to maintain the integrity of the market. That is  an inevitable consequence of a high tariff obstructing British exports.
That is not all; I had only 30 seconds in the House yesterday, but I mentioned the particular problem associated with exports through the port of Portsmouth. It is actually the lifeline to the Channel Islands; that is the main route. The Channel Islands are not otherwise affected by Brexit of course, but they will be in this case. If trade is obstructed at the port because of the need to comply with veterinary requirements, phytosanitary requirements and things of that kind, lorries will be obstructed and fresh produce will not be able to get through. Quite apart from the disruption to traffic, the whole system of agricultural trade and the supply of food to the Channel Islands will simply dry up. We have an enormous practical problem resulting from this.

Chris Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman is giving an excellent speech, which is very helpful indeed. Did he see that the Financial Times reported yesterday that the Department for Transport commissioned research that says that just a 70-second delay in authorising a vehicle at the border could mean a six-day queue to get on a ferry?

Vincent Cable: Yes. Indeed, if I have made a contribution to this argument, it is in pointing out that this is not just a problem in Dover; this problem exists in all the ports around the country. There is going to be serious disruption of supply chains—of the supply of fresh food and many other items. Those people who trivialise the issue by simply saying, “WTO rules—nothing to worry about”, are completely disregarding these consequences.
The conclusion I come to—I think many Conservative Members share it, publicly or privately—is that no deal is just not a viable, acceptable option under any circumstances. We will therefore, within the next few weeks, be brought to the point at which the Government will have to revoke article 50. That would be a major step; it would be overturning the result of the referendum. I feel uncomfortable about Parliament, through Government, doing that. That is why I and other people who are not enthusiasts for referendums believe that the only way of dealing with this properly and of reasserting democratic legitimacy is to go back to the public and seek their approval for doing just that.

Theresa Villiers: I rise briefly to explain why I feel I have to vote against the draft withdrawal agreement that we are debating over the next few days.
Before doing that, however, I want to welcome warmly the statement made very clearly by the Prime Minister after the Salzburg summit that, whatever the outcome of the negotiations, the rights of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom would be protected. I think that was a hugely important promise to give. I urge the Government to make sure that their settled status scheme operates smoothly so that we ensure that those rights are fully and properly protected, because it is vital that we do so. EU citizens are our friends, our colleagues and our neighbours. We want them to stay, and we want to ensure that their rights are appropriately protected.
Turning to the draft withdrawal agreement, I regret that I have to diverge from the Government on this crucial question but I cannot support an agreement that I do not think is in the national interest and that I do  not believe respects the result of the referendum in 2016. Of course, I fully recognise the need for compromise as we settle a new relationship with our European neighbours. I strongly believe that we need to listen to the views of people on all sides, whichever way they voted in the referendum, but right across the spectrum of views on Brexit there are many who believe that this draft agreement is not the right one for our country.
A legal obligation to pay £38 billion to the EU, without any certainty on our future trading relationship, would significantly undermine our negotiating position. We would be giving up a key advantage in the negotiations for little in return.
The so-called backstop would do even greater harm. It is not acceptable for the United Kingdom to become a regulatory satellite of the EU, locked permanently into its regulatory and customs orbit, without a vote, a voice or even an exit door. Northern Ireland would have an even greater proportion of its laws determined by institutions in which it has no say than the rest of the United Kingdom under the terms of the deal. Even listing the titles of those regulations takes up more than 60 pages in the draft agreement. As the Attorney General’s legal advice confirmed, Northern Ireland would be required to treat Great Britain as a third country in relation to goods crossing the Irish sea.
According to Martin Howe, QC, the backstop arguably contradicts the articles of the Acts of Union of 1800, one of the fundamental founding statutes of this Parliament. The articles state that
“in all treaties…with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.”
The articles also stipulate that all prohibitions on the export of products from Great Britain to Ireland, or vice versa, should cease from 1 January 1801.
Even if the backstop were removed, I am afraid there would still be unacceptable flaws in the draft agreement. In particular, the significant continuing role for the European Court of Justice would prevent us from restoring democratic control over the making of our laws. Of similar concern is the statement in the political declaration that the backstop and the withdrawal treaty will be the starting point for the negotiations on the future relationship.
I want to emphasise that none of the amendments that have been tabled to the motion can fix the defects that I have referred to in the withdrawal agreement. If we ratify the treaty, it will be legally binding and it will apply regardless of encouraging statements and amendments about parliamentary locks or other warm words.
There is a better option: we should table a draft in the EU negotiations that sets out a wide-ranging free trade agreement based on the Canada plus model. That is in line with proposals that Donald Tusk put forward in March. It should include a protocol in which all parties commit that no new physical infrastructure will be installed on the Northern Ireland border. Instead, we should use existing flexibilities in the EU’s customs code to ensure that customs formalities and checks take place away from the border, as was set out in the paper produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) in September last year.
More people voted leave in June 2016 than have ever voted for anything else in the long history of British democracy. That was a legitimate expression of the  natural desire to be an independent self-governing democracy—the basis on which most countries around the world operate their systems of government. EU membership means vesting supreme law-making power in people we do not elect and cannot remove—people who in this negotiation process have shown clearly that they do not have our best interests at heart and that they are prepared to inflict punishment on us for the democratic choices we have made.
Brexit is an issue that has divided my constituency and the whole country. I will continue to work to bridge the divisions that the referendum has painfully exposed, but I do not believe that the draft withdrawal agreement is the right way forward either for my constituents or for the nation as a whole, and I urge the House to vote against it next week.

Rushanara Ali: Britain in the European Union has been at the heart of building peace, security and prosperity. We have played a critical role in promoting the ideals of democracy, human rights, equality and freedom. We have worked with our European partners to fight extremism and terrorism, to protect the environment, to improve labour standards for our citizens and to contribute to tackling global poverty, conflict and inequality.
Since the referendum, the Government have failed to build coalitions and consensus. They have failed to prioritise economic reality over fanciful ideology. They have failed to put aside party interest in favour of the national interest. That failure is reflected in the dreadful deal secured, after two years, by the Prime Minister. It leaves us as rule takers at the mercy of the EU, when we were once equal partners setting the agenda and making the rules. It leaves us fundamentally worse off, costing billions of pounds that could have been spent on tackling the appalling social problems caused by the programme of austerity implemented by the Government: crime, child poverty, inadequate social care, rising homelessness and the housing crisis. There have been cuts to education, early years funding and much else.
The deal leaves businesses facing years of uncertainty and without clarity on our future trading relationship with the European Union. It gives little clarity on what protections there will be for workers’ rights and the environment after the implementation period. It leaves us in a much weaker position to negotiate trade deals with non-EU countries, whenever it is that we might be free to do so. We have heard from many knowledgeable Members about how long that might be. It is not likely to be done in two years; it is more likely to be in five, six or seven years. The EU has been successful in negotiating over 50 trade agreements with third countries. Britain is stronger negotiating as part of an EU bloc with big emerging economic powers. It leaves us worse off, and the golden promises made by the leave campaign have so far failed to materialise. They were totally unrealistic. They were incredibly misleading and untruthful. They were unfair on the British people, because they were so untrue and misleading.
Since 2016, the uncertainty due to the result of the referendum has already cost the UK more than 2% of GDP. Households are £900 a year worse off and investment has gone down dramatically. The Prime Minister has said that the impact of leaving the EU does not show  that we will be poorer, but that is exactly what the Government’s own analysis of leaving the EU shows. Under the Government’s deal, the economy will be 3.9% smaller. That is the equivalent of over £100 billion a year. The average person will be over £1,000 worse off and real wages will be 2.7% lower. Trade barriers would be 10% of the value of the services trade. The Government are also asking us to spend £39 billion to make people poorer.
How can I vote for a deal that makes us even more worse off, when thousands of people in my constituency rely on jobs in financial services, the tech industry and other companies that trade with the European Union? They desperately need access to the single market and the customs union. Even before we leave the EU, half of all children in my constituency live in poverty thanks to the appalling policies of this heartless Government. The Government’s austerity programme has led to schools facing millions of pounds of cuts, homelessness doubling, and crime, including violent crime and knife crime, soaring because 200 police officers have been laid off—nationally, the figure is 21,000. I cannot understand how the Government can claim that this is the best they can do, when Britain stands to lose so much. The provisions and the cost of Brexit will result in less money for investment in our public services because of the tens of billions of pounds we will have to spend under the Prime Minister’s deal or no deal, which is the choice she is threatening us with.
In the future trading relationship—the political declaration, which many colleagues have already mentioned—the Government no longer promise frictionless trade, only the possibility of co-operation. A future customs arrangement could consist of technology solutions that do not even yet exist and are likely to cost tens of billions of pounds. Financial services—which contribute 6.5% of total economic output, more than £27 billion of tax annually, and employ more than 2 million people around our country—get just three paragraphs.
I refer to financial services because my constituency sits between the City of London and Canary Wharf, which power our economy. Too often this Government fail to prioritise or think about the long-term impact of our leaving the single market and customs union on those sectors that provide so much tax revenue and so many jobs in our country. As many hon. Members have mentioned, the services sector accounts for 80% of the economy, and yet the future trading relationship lacks clarity on the kind of access we will have to the single market. The relationship for UK firms in the sector will be based on equivalence, which is much worse and more limited than what we have now. That means the loss of passporting rights and 16 million people facing uncertainty about their insurance policies. There also remains no clarity about how about £28 trillion-worth of derivatives—the infrastructure that allows banks and their clients to manage risk, cash flow and capital positions—could be affected.
When the Prime Minister decided, hastily and irresponsibly, to start the clock by triggering article 50—which some of us voted against—she had no strategy. She did not have a plan and put our country in a terrible position and at the mercy of EU negotiators, who had  the upper hand. In 2017, the UK’s former ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, told the Treasury Select Committee:
“If you wanted to avoid being screwed in the negotiations…say: ‘I will invoke Article 50, but only under circumstances where I know exactly how it’s going to operate’.”
That is not what happened. The Prime Minister did not heed that advice and the country is paying the price for her mistake.
The Prime Minister has failed to listen to concerns relayed to her by Members from across the House, including at a meeting she held yesterday, rather belatedly—nearly two years after triggering article 50—with Members of different parties. She missed the opportunity to bring the House together from the beginning, as others have pointed out. She has been beholden to managing divisions in her party, which has been ripping itself apart, making a mockery of our country in the rest of the world. Let us not forget that the rest of the world, which historically has seen us as an important ally, is looking at us in dismay. When Conservative Members talk about global Britain, they should remember how their behaviour in tearing themselves apart, and how their divisions tearing the country apart, look across the world. They are far from presenting an image of the inclusive, mature, global Britain required in the face of the huge challenge we have to address.
By giving us a false choice between her deal and no deal, the Prime Minister is holding a metaphorical gun to our heads. That is utterly irresponsible and she and her Ministers need to stop doing that. We will not accept that false choice. The no-deal scenario is utterly catastrophic. The Bank of England’s worst-case scenario points out that no deal could shrink our economy by 8%, and unemployment could increase dramatically, with inflation spiralling out of control. Many constituencies will suffer job losses in a no-deal situation, but mine will be among the worst off—according to the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex, thousands of residents in Bethnal Green and Bow will lose their jobs.
Yesterday’s amendment to the Finance Bill demonstrates that there is no majority for crashing out of the EU with no deal. I believe there is a majority for seeking to secure permanent customs union and single market access, and the Government should do so. As they are running down the clock, article 50 must be revoked. But of course the best deal on offer is membership of the EU. The Government promised the exact same benefits, but they now offer something that will damage our economy.
I cannot support this deal, because I believe it will make our country and my constituents worse off. The Government’s own analysis points to that. We should allow the public a final say, with a choice between the Government’s deal and remaining in the European Union. I and many of my constituents joined more than 700,000 people to march in the streets of London for a people’s vote. I believe that is the only way to settle this matter, and I hope the Government will consider that option when this deal is voted down, as I believe it will be; otherwise, they will destroy livelihoods, cause job losses, damage our economy and diminish our place in the world. Nobody wants to see that happen to our country.

Alberto Costa: My constituency voted to leave the European Union, and I promised my constituents before, during and after the referendum that I would respect the result. I also told them that I believe in a smooth and orderly Brexit. Although the Prime Minister’s deal is imperfect, I believe it will provide that smooth and orderly Brexit.
The Prime Minister has worked very hard on the deal, and my constituents have given me the message loud and clear, whatever their view on the European Union, that she has been sincere about respecting the referendum result. She has been extremely hard-working and is absolutely determined to see this through. I think all of us in the House, and most of our constituents, recognise that the Prime Minister is trying to do what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I would like to touch on a couple of aspects of the deal that I think will help Members come to the same conclusion I came to and support this compromise. I have received many emails from constituents telling me to vote against the deal or for the deal. Even those who asked me to vote against it did so for different reasons. Some did so because they want no deal, and others because they want a second referendum or another outcome—perhaps no Brexit at all. Those who email to ask me to support the deal do so in a calm, rational and logical manner, whether they voted leave or remain. They explain that this deal, imperfect though it is, is a compromise that will allow the country to have a smooth and orderly exit.
Mr Speaker, you will know that for the last two and a half years I have been championing the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and British citizens living in the EU27. I think I am one of the MPs most personally affected by the decision to leave the EU and its impact on citizens’ rights, because my mother, father and sister are EU nationals. I think everyone in the House believes that we should protect the rights of EU nationals living in Britain and British citizens living in the EU, and the only way of doing that in a smooth and orderly manner is with the Prime Minister’s proposed deal. It is the only deal that offers that an absolute guarantee to my parents, to the more than 3 million EU nationals in Britain and to the more than 1 million British nationals in the EU.

Carol Monaghan: Does the hon. Gentleman support the £65 fee that these EU nationals have to pay?

Alberto Costa: I would say two things about that. In 2014 the SNP—[Interruption.] I promise to answer directly. In 2014 the SNP argued that Scotland should leave the EU and then reapply for admission as a third party. That was, in effect, what was on the ballot paper for Scottish independence, so it is a bit rich today for the SNP to talk about citizens’ rights. It put them in danger back in 2014.
I said that I would answer the hon. Lady’s question, and my answer is this: as a member of the Government—as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland—I support the Government, but I am uneasy about the fees for settled status. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) asked the Prime Minister about the fees earlier today,  and I can say this to the hon. Lady: it is a matter that I am pursuing and will continue to pursue to ensure absolute fairness for innocent EU nationals in this country, who did not have the right to vote in the referendum, who in many instances have lived in this country for decades, and who might be asked to pay a sum of money—albeit a modest sum of money—to remain in the country. I personally think we have to look at that very carefully. I promised her an answer, and I hope she is satisfied with that one.
The deal on citizens’ rights gives certainty not just to citizens but to businesses that rely on EU nationals for their workforce. If a further reason is required, that is a second and connected reason to support the deal. It would allow businesses to continue to employ EU nationals, not just those resident in this country today but those who come to the UK during the implementation period. The implementation period would give certainty to EU nationals who in the future might wish to live and work here—and exercise their withdrawal agreement rights, if that agreement is passed—and to businesses in South Leicestershire that have been lobbying me and asking me what the situation will be for the people they employ.
The implementation period would also give certainty to British businesses that do business in the EU27 and need UK nationals not only to work in member states but to have the ability to move between member states. The deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated allows for that, and I say this to Opposition Members, particularly Labour Members and the shadow Brexit spokesman: if they are sincere, as I hope they are, I urge them to see that as an overriding reason to support the Prime Minister’s deal, given that they have not come up with any plan of their own that would give EU and UK nationals the rights that her deal would give them.
I come now to the second issue, which is the so-called backstop. Let me declare an interest and refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am dually qualified as a Scottish and an English solicitor, and I still practise as an English solicitor. We have heard a lot of talk from people who have, let us say, new-found Unionism in their blood, and I welcome that greatly. I felt that I was a lonely voice in the 2015 Parliament when I intervened to oppose nationalists’ comments about the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) has an intervention to make, she should feel free to make it.

Carol Monaghan: I think that all we would argue about is where the lines are drawn. The hon. Gentleman obviously feels that he is British, and we feel that we are Scottish. Both of us are happy to show pride in our nations, as we see them.

Alberto Costa: I am proud to say that I am Scottish, British and with Italian heritage, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. We are the wonderful, fantastic United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I urge the hon. Lady to start reflecting on her own party’s policies, which are divisive. I am not a nationalist; I am a British patriot. There is a difference between the narrow-mindedness of nationalism and being a good patriot.
I was talking about the issue of the so-called backstop. Let me make a simple analogy. There is one area about which, as a dually qualified solicitor, I am able to speak  with some knowledge, and that is legal services. There is a lot of talk about creating a border down the Irish sea, but there is already a border down the Irish sea when it comes to legal services regulation.
In fact, the United Kingdom is blessed with three legal systems: distinct, proud, global and fair systems. We have the English and Welsh system, the Scottish system and the Northern Irish system. As fellow lawyers will know, each of those systems regards the others as foreign legal systems. England and Wales regards Northern Ireland’s system as a foreign legal system, and Scotland regards England and Wales’s system as a foreign legal system. A qualified Scottish solicitor does not have automatic regulatory rights to practise in Northern Ireland, because there already a border down the Irish sea in respect of legal services regulation. Each jurisdiction has its own regulatory body when it comes to the profession of lawyers.

Gavin Robinson: As a member of the Northern Irish Bar, and as someone who had the opportunity to study English or Scottish law, I know that there are two substantive forms of law in this land. We have devolution, and there are respected regulatory bodies in every field and every facet in this country. In this place, however, we have one sovereign Parliament. The withdrawal agreement would allow rules and regulations to be set for Northern Ireland in another sovereign Parliament.

Alberto Costa: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but my point is simply this. He does not have an automatic right to practise as a barrister in England and Wales unless the regulatory body in England and Wales permits a Northern Irish barrister to do so, because there is a border down the Irish sea. Under European Union law as it stands, the Law Society of Northern Ireland is, at least for solicitors, the regulatory body that is recognised as a competent authority. I speak as a Unionist—I have the scars on my back from fighting for the integrity of the United Kingdom when I stood against the SNP candidate in Angus—but there are already instances of different regulatory practices between the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

Gavin Robinson: rose—

Alberto Costa: I am afraid that I am going to wind up my speech now. Others want to speak.
There is nothing unique in the principle of having slightly different regulatory regimes when it comes to services or goods. I do not want to see the backstop, and I believe that the Prime Minister is right: it is an insurance policy, and I hope that she will bring something back from the EU in the next few days. However, I do not think that that alone should negate a Member’s duty to vote for this deal in the interests of the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, if the deal does not go through next week, the people out there are watching us. We are the sovereign Parliament—sovereignty is in our hands—and we must make a decision that calms the febrile atmosphere that still exists out there, and one that allows us to respect the referendum result in a smooth and orderly manner. I believe that the Prime Minister’s deal, compromise though it is, allows us to do that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. There is no formal time limit on Back-Bench speeches at present, but it would be helpful for colleagues to know that speeches of approximately 10 minutes each, and preferably no more, will happily enable everyone who wishes to contribute to do so.

David Crausby: I was actively involved in the “Get Britain Out” campaign in the referendum in 1975. I was on the wrong side of that referendum when I voted to leave, and I was on the wrong side of the next one, 41 years later, when I voted to remain. In the meantime, the British people changed their minds in one direction, and I changed my mind in the other. At the same time, mainstream politics, and much of the media, changed its mind as well as the common market evolved into the European Union. In the 1970s, many Conservatives who supported the common market, which many in Labour saw as a big businessman’s club, started to get nervous when the European Union started properly to deliver workers’ rights. At the same time, the Labour movement and the trade unions came round to the view that there were advantages in cross-European standards on equal pay, decent working conditions and, most importantly, good standards of health and safety.
The referendums of 1975 and 2016 have much in common. Ted Heath, the then Prime Minister, had taken us into the common market in 1972 without a people’s vote, so Harold Wilson promised a referendum after he delivered renegotiated terms. The British people went for it, and he won the 1974 election and the remain result in the consequential referendum. Fast forward to 2015, David Cameron, who was becoming terrified of the threat posed by Nigel Farage and UKIP, must have looked back in history and thought it would be a good idea to imitate Harold Wilson by promising a referendum in the forthcoming election. To be fair, David Cameron was successful in that his policy secured a Conservative majority for the first time since 1992. The first part of Mr Cameron’s cunning plan worked, but the difference was that it all went wrong for Mr Cameron because he was no Harold Wilson and was completely unable to persuade the British people to do what was in Britain’s best interest.
When critics say that there should be no second referendum, the fact is that we have already had two. In advance of the second vote in 2016, those who wanted to leave the EU claimed that the public did not understand the consequences of the common market when we first voted in 1975 so, as was their right, they argued for another referendum. Now, the same group who want to leave argue that another referendum—a third one—would be an insult to those who voted three years ago, because it would be tantamount to saying that those who voted to leave did not know what they were doing. The truth is that nobody knew what they were doing in 2016—if indeed they did in 1975. Only a few anoraks, mainly in this place, actually thought they knew what they were doing, and I have to say that some of them—unfortunately, scarily—still think they know what they are doing.
If there has been a mistake in this sad saga it is that we should never have had either referendum in the first place, and that is the fault of nobody but us politicians. We are responsible for this self-inflicted chaos, not the electorate, and we have a duty to resolve it.
If I have learned anything from all of this it is that yes/no referendums are not the right way, not even the honest way, to make complex policy in the interests of our country. They have been deviously misused by politicians to win general elections: the promise of a 1975 referendum won the election for Labour, just as the proposed 2016 referendum won the election for the Tories. What we should honourably do in the future is make it clear in our manifestos what we stand for and then put that to the public in a general election. I reluctantly have to say that Ted Heath was right in 1970 when he put in the Conservative manifesto that he would negotiate to take us into the common market and did so. That is what we should resolve to do in the future.
Where do we go from here? In crisis, we should stay calm and do the sensible thing, not the emotional thing: when in a hole, stop digging. As we stand, we have clear choices: a no-deal Brexit, the Prime Minister’s no-point Brexit, or no Brexit at all. The choices might well look unpleasant and humiliating, but this is where we are as a country.
For my part, I am not a fan of our present-day EU and its institutions, and there is much that we should change: the common agricultural policy is a disgrace; our fishing communities are treated unfairly; the free movement of labour was introduced too quickly without thought or consideration for low-paid workers; and as for the unelected bureaucrats and their unaccountable budgets, they drive me crazy. But to leave in panic with the Prime Minister’s proposed deal while remaining under the yoke of the unelected control of foreign powers is madness; it would be a betrayal, and it in no way honours the will of the British people, even in what was a flawed referendum vote in the first place. We would do better to stay in the EU and give the rest of them hell, particularly the unelected bureaucrats.
To stay where we are is my conclusion to this humiliatingly unsolvable problem, because the fact is that what was promised by the leave campaign in 2016 is not and never was deliverable. We just have to accept in life that there are some things that we cannot do. For my part I always wanted to score the winning goal in a World cup final in the last minute for England at Wembley after extra time, but I have reluctantly come round to the view that it is not going to happen. Likewise to be the first nation to leave the EU in opposition to 27 other countries and get a good deal for Britain at the same time was always, to say the very least, naive.
Some say that the Prime Minister has done her very best and she deserves a measure of sympathy; sorry, but I have none, because my concern lies with the fate of the British people, who have been led by this Government—her Government—into extremely dangerous waters.
The fact is that the Prime Minister has been centrally involved in this circus, all the way through, from the point when David Cameron and his Ministers opportunistically started the process. The Prime Minister should go back to Brussels and make it clear that we will not be bullied. We should leave, if we must, in our own time and on our own terms. And if we need to take up the option to delay or revoke article 50, of course we should do that. We should do whatever is in the interests of the British people, and if that creates uncertainty for our markets and an embarrassment for the Government, so be it.
My dad did not fight his way through the second world war to be humiliated, and I will not be voting for this cap-in-hand deal or any other remotely like it.

Ross Thomson: My views on Brexit are well known. As a prominent campaigner for Scottish Vote Leave, my views were well known by my constituents before I was elected to this House. I respect the fact that colleagues and other MPs have very different views, often genuinely and passionately held, but I hope that, regardless of those deeply held views, we can all agree that we all want what is best for this country.
Did Members know that the number of people who voted leave in Scotland is similar to the populations of Glasgow and Edinburgh—Scotland’s two largest cities—combined? Over 1 million Scots voted to leave the EU, yet they are wholly under-represented both in this place and in the Scottish Parliament. There is growing frustration and anger among Scottish leave voters about their being airbrushed out of Scotland’s story by the narrative of some that Scotland voted to remain, and that that is Scotland’s voice. Well, I will not be airbrushed out of here. The National can attack me and bully me as much as it wants, and people can vandalise my office or protest outside it as much as they want, but I will never give up speaking up for the 1 million Scots who voted to leave the European Union.
I am not just a Brexiteer. I am a committed, dedicated and most passionate Unionist first. Our United Kingdom is something that we have built together, and the ties that bind us go beyond the nations to individuals. For over 300 years we have traded together, fought for freedom and peace together, and built our lives together. That is why in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum I campaigned with my head, heart, body and soul to keep this United Kingdom together.
It is because I am a Scottish Unionist that I cannot in good conscience support this withdrawal agreement. I share the concerns of other colleagues and Democratic Unionist party Members that the backstop arrangement would mean hiving off Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK, with Northern Ireland being kept in a separate regulatory regime. Northern Ireland would be left in the single market for goods and agrifoods, while Great Britain leaves, an arrangement that would give Brussels more say over the rules in Northern Ireland than our own United Kingdom Parliament.
The backstop would require that Northern Ireland follows around 300 EU regulations, and if the UK were to diverge from one of them, it would mean a border down the Irish sea. If the EU were to change any regulation and the rest of the UK did not follow, despite having no say over those changes, it would impose a border down the Irish sea. Northern Ireland would be left in full harmonisation with the EU.
I have heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other Ministers say that, to avoid a border down the Irish sea, Great Britain would align with Northern Ireland, but what does that mean in practice? It means that the UK would be tied to EU rules that it would be voiceless to change or oppose. That would not be taking back control. It is the opposite of what people voted for and worse than the current arrangement.
The prosperity of our Union is dependent on our own internal market and the thousands of jobs that depend on it, so any barriers that are put in the way of that and that affect our ability to trade within the United Kingdom are hugely damaging. I therefore struggle to comprehend how anyone who believes in the integrity of the UK can support a deal that would keep Northern Ireland in the single market. How could anyone want to see new burdens and regulations put in place on trade going east to west across the Irish sea? That would mean that goods manufactured in my constituency of Aberdeen South that move to Belfast would be subject to new customs declarations and the issuing of certificates—new barriers to trade within our own country.
I recognise that the Government have attempted to address these real concerns, and that they have brought forward new measures, but it is with regret that I feel that those measures do not go far enough. What I read today seemed more like a public relations exercise than a real remedy to the problems. The backstop arrangement will be part of an internationally binding treaty, which means that by its very nature it will supersede any domestic legal provisions. Furthermore, the arrangement fails to hold true to what was agreed in the joint report of December 2017. So, to coin a phrase, nothing has changed. The withdrawal agreement does protect the Union—the European Union. Sadly, it does not protect our own.
There are wider concerns about the withdrawal agreement. The backstop means that we could be trapped in the EU indefinitely, with the EU27 having a veto. We would be unable to strike our own trade deal. The advice from the House of Commons EU legislation team is that the backstop customs arrangement would be
“a practical barrier to the UK entering separate trade agreements on goods with third countries”.
As a Scot, I know that one of our greatest exports is Scottish whisky. Its global reputation for quality is absolutely unmatched. The industry has been optimistic about the opportunities presented by Brexit to sell its product into the exciting new and growing markets in the world. The withdrawal agreement recognises and protects more than 3,000 geographical indications. The agreement is not a trade deal—in fact, we cannot even talk trade—but under it, the UK will protect EU GIs, such as Parma ham and feta cheese. That has the potential to prevent us from reaching free trade agreements with the US or India, which are the big markets for Scottish whisky. In trade deals, we need to protect our own GIs, not the EU’s. Furthermore, US ambassador Woody Johnson has clearly stated that if the withdrawal agreement is passed, it does not look like it would be possible to agree a bilateral UK-US trade deal.
Finally, we will have to pay £39 billion to the EU. That is £1,400 per family in the UK. Ordinary taxpayers should rightly feel that they are not getting very much for that amount of money. I recognise that in a negotiation one side does not get everything that it wants and the other side nothing. However, nowhere in the agreement can I see a significant concession that the UK has achieved. Unbelievably, the EU appears to have got everything that it wants. It is therefore little wonder that  the EU Commission is claiming that the power lies with it—that its mission is to prove that leaving the EU does not work.
In conclusion, yes, Brexit is an unprecedented challenge for our country, and it requires a national effort to meet that challenge, but Brexit is not an existential threat to our Union. That is why I am horrified that before us is a deal that leaves Northern Ireland behind and treats it like a foreign territory. I will not stand by and allow our United Kingdom to be broken up by the back door. No Unionist can ever accept that. The Conservative and Unionist party cannot accept that. The UK Parliament cannot accept that, which is why MPs must vote down this deal.

Pat McFadden: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Sir David Crausby).
After a month’s delay, we have to begin by asking: what exactly has been gained by putting this vote off from its scheduled date in December? What has the Prime Minister achieved by her tour of European capitals and her pleas to fellow EU leaders? There may well be some kind of letter, or statement, or clarification issued between now and the vote next Tuesday. No doubt the Government will try to make the most of that if it comes, but after a month’s delay, it does not feel as though anything of substance has changed in the proposals before us.
All of us are conscious of our responsibilities. We are conscious of the stakes before us, and also conscious that this issue, almost like no other, cuts across party political lines. After two years of debate on Brexit, we find our country deeply divided, sentiments unleashed that we thought we would not see again in Britain, our politics paralysed by irreconcilable red lines, issues that would normally be top of the political agenda neglected and downgraded because of the huge political energy sucked up—and all the while, the rest of the world look at the UK and wonder what has happened to us.
The Brexit vote in many parts of the country, including in the Black country, which I have the honour of representing, was driven by a deep sense of loss—a loss of an industrial past that had brought good jobs and prosperity, a loss of a sense of pride and purpose for some of our towns and cities contrasted with a present where, far too often, the jobs are low-paid and insecure and where people and areas feel ignored and abandoned. Any attempt to understand how we got here has to appreciate that sense of loss. The question is how we respond to that sense of loss with leadership that offers some actual answers rather than simply giving people someone or something to blame.
Once the Brexit vote happened, the country had a choice: a complete break with the European Union with the consequence of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and huge economic and industrial disruption, or a rule-taking Brexit where we left legally speaking but still obeyed most of the same rules. It was a choice between a Brexit that raised the question of what is the price, and a Brexit that raised the question of what is the point. What was never on the cards was to pretend that we could keep all the current advantages of EU membership and have all the new freedoms promised by the Brexiteers. The failure to  be candid about that is the root cause of the disillusionment with the draft agreement put before us. Even more damning, the failure to be candid about this had nothing to do with putting the national interest first. As always with this issue, year after year, it had far more to do with fear of being candid because of the internal politics of the Conservative party.
The flaws in this agreement are about far more than the Northern Ireland backstop. Let us be clear: the backstop is an insurance policy in case a trade agreement that does the same thing as the backstop is not reached, and that same thing is such a degree of alignment with EU rules that there is no need for a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That requirement has not been imposed on us; it is reiterated and supported by the Government and signed up to explicitly in the agreement of December 2017. No one has done this to us. It is a commitment that we have made.
Brexit also promised to give the UK control over borders, laws and money, yet the agreement before us does the opposite. In fact, it crystallises the disempowerment of the United Kingdom. We will still be paying in for years to come, but we will no longer have any say over the laws we obey. That does not enhance sovereignty or control. It simply leaves us paying tens of billions of pounds for a worse deal than we have at present. And remember: this is only the withdrawal agreement. Negotiations on the future have not really begun, but we know a couple of things about them. We know that service industries, which form 80% of our economy, are to be thrown under a bus, and we know that the degree of access that we have to EU markets in the future will be closely related to the degree of alignment with the rules that we are prepared to make, even though we will no longer have a say over them.
On the economics, the Government have not even tried to deny that the proposal will make the country poorer compared to our current arrangements. Every study of every scenario, including the Government’s own, has admitted that. Never before—certainly not in peacetime—have a Government brought forth a proposition that they admit will make the country poorer and then said that we must proceed at all costs. Perhaps that is why this deal seems to satisfy neither leavers nor remainers.
This deal has done one great service to us. It has shown us how much worse the proposed arrangement is compared with the deal that we have now—whereby we are rule makers, not rule takers, usually to the significant advantage of our world-leading industries; there is no backstop or hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic; and there is no interference in the multinational supply chains on which our industries depend.
The Government’s argument does not really dispute that.They know that is true, and they have stopped really arguing for the withdrawal agreement on its merits. Instead, they are really desperate for the transition period, the singular advantage of which is that it is not really Brexit; it is staying in the European Union, except for the singular disadvantage of it, which is that we are absenting ourselves from the decision-making forums where the rules that we will obey are decided. The only argument that Ministers have left is that this agreement is better than the total chaos of no deal, but that is a humiliating choice for the country.

Alex Sobel: My right hon. Friend is making an eloquent speech, and he has made the excellent point that the deal we have now is the best deal available. but if we are to take leadership on this, and if we are to remain in the European family, should we not look at reforming the European Union? The message from the British people is clearly that the European Union is not perfect as it is now, otherwise we would not have had the result that we did, and we should be striding forward to try to reform the European Union if we are to remain.

Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is significant that a number of other countries would agree with us on that, even in the two years since the vote took place.
As I said, this is a humiliating choice for our country. We are the fifth biggest economy in the world, a major defence and security power, and one of the few countries in the world with global cultural reach, but we are being told by our Government that we have to accept a deal that they admit and know makes us weaker and poorer, because the only alternative to it is economic carnage. That is no choice for the country to have to make. We are also told that we have to vote for the deal because people are fed up talking about Brexit. The argument goes, “Just get on with it. Get it over with”, but that is both irresponsible and an illusion. It is irresponsible, because boredom is no basis on which to take a decision as serious as this about the future of the country. We should not be told that we have to resign ourselves to the disempowerment of the United Kingdom under the illusion that if we do so we can then simply change the subject.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend made reference to the history of the internal politics of the Tory party leading this agenda. Is he also clear that we are not sure what type of Brexit we would actually end up with? The potential is that we will now have several years of just more of the Tory infighting that we have had over the past decades.

Pat McFadden: It is more than a potential—it is a racing certainty. It is an illusion to think that this argument is finished on 30 March if we agree this withdrawal agreement—that is simply not the case. That is precisely because, as my hon. Friend indicated, the political declaration leaves the fundamental questions unanswered. The only thing it makes clear is that our market access will depend on the extent to which we agree to common rules. The issues of economics and the border that create the dilemma between a “what’s the point Brexit?” and a “what’s the price Brexit?” go on and on into the future. They are unresolved, and that will continue. That is not the fault of the civil service or because of some establishment plot—it is the fault of Brexit itself and the failure to level with the country about the choices it would involve. What we have learned, in the end, is that we could not have our cake and eat it—not because someone was mean to us or conspired to steal our prize, but because this was always a false promise.
I am clear that the sense of loss that drove the Brexit vote is real. The need for a new plan to offer a better chance in life to working-class communities is urgent, but endorsing a plan that makes our country poorer and weaker makes it more difficult, not less, to answer  the genuine grievances felt in parts of our country. The first step to forming a new plan that offers real answers is to cast off the absurd victim complex that tries to portray our country as some kind of colony of the European Union. That is not true, it never was true, and we have wielded far more influence, with far more success, than that nationalist myth would ever allow for.
It is within our power to address many of the causes of Brexit without endorsing the self-harm contained in the proposals before us—or, indeed, participating in the dishonesty that tells working-class communities that their problems would all be resolved if only we could reduce immigration. Far too much of the debate about immigration has treated it as a danger to be feared rather than a fact of the modern world. Of course we should have a system with rules, but there is no rewind button to a country and a world that is not coming back. Every developed economy, including ours, will be more diverse in the future than in the past.
If the Government win the vote next week, we proceed on that basis, but if not, what then? In recent days, Parliament has exerted its will to take more control over this process. I simply say to Ministers that it is unacceptable to say that if we do not endorse this proposal, the only proposal is to drive the country towards no deal. Parliament must be allowed to express its view on the alternatives that are there, including extending article 50, the legal judgment that has shown that we can revoke article 50 if we wish, and the option of going back to the people themselves. These options must be allowed to be put before Parliament, they must be allowed to be voted on, and the Government must stop trying to drive Parliament into a choice between the proposals before us and the disaster that leaving without a deal would represent.

Julian Knight: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who is as erudite as ever.
Like many colleagues—perhaps I am being a little glib here to a certain extent—I did not actually come into politics to bang on about Europe. I am a social liberal and economically of the right—dry as a bone, in many respects. I wanted my political life to be, effectively, advancing that twin track of social liberalism and economic free marketarianism. However, we are where we are.
Before I was first elected in 2015, I knocked on about 30,000 doors during the two and a half years of the campaign, and I have to say that in most instances I found that Europe was probably about No. 10 on the list of issues raised on the doorstep. Much higher on the list was immigration and its conflation with Europe, which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East spoke about. During the referendum campaign I visited Solihull College, and I was struck by the fact that many of the young students talked about wages and the lack of housing, and they equated that with EU migration in effect. That is one of the key reasons why so many people—a uniquely high number—in the council estates in the north of Solihull came out to vote.
Serving as an elected representative comes with acute responsibilities. I fundamentally believe that we have a duty to honour the clear commitments made by this House before the vote and after it and to deliver Britain’s  departure from the European Union. I am especially wary of any effort to put the question to a second referendum. Not only would there be serious practical difficulties in any such effort—not least deciding on the question and simply completing the legislative work needed even to hold one—but it would pose a real problem for our democracy. There is no avoiding the fact that it would stand in a dishonourable tradition of Brussels taking questions back to the voters until it gets the answers it wants, nor that the Government and both the major parties have been quite clear that they would deliver on the result of the 2016 referendum. It may be tempting at this moment in the spotlight to clasp tight the political comfort blanket of a second referendum, but it is a fool’s path for this democracy and this country. It sends us further down the rabbit hole.
We should remember that the EU has evolved since we voted leave. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) mentioned the need for change from within, and I argued about that at the time of the referendum. In Britain’s absence, the push towards a full federalist agenda has accelerated and is very notable. That may well be a good thing for the EU in the long run, but it highlights that we want increasingly different things. We have held it together over many years, but those fissures are now widening. Even if we were to somehow get back into the EU by a second referendum or at a later stage, the proposition would be very different from today. Backtracking on the referendum would not sell the British people on the euro or the rest of the federal project, and the tensions that led to the referendum would not only continue but deepen further in the years ahead.
As for the withdrawal agreement, I share the view of the Attorney General that while it might not be perfect, it is temporary. I am deeply concerned by the backstop, both because of its implications for our practical sovereignty and because of its special treatment of Northern Ireland. However, on reflection, I believe that it is sufficiently uncomfortable for the EU that the EU will not wish to trap us in it indefinitely, and article 50 cannot be taken as a basis for a lasting future relationship.
I also need to think about what is best for my constituency. Solihull is a proud exporting town with a real global footprint, home to not only great British brands such as Jaguar Land Rover but numerous manufacturers and service providers that rely on frictionless access to European markets. As the MP for a town that enjoys a visible goods trade surplus with the EU, it is my responsibility to support a Brexit that meets the needs of Solihull’s employers and exporters. This deal, while not perfect, does at least smooth our departure and avoid severe economic disruption in March.
Some Members are convinced by the warnings of so-called “Project Fear”, and it is true that some of the wilder predictions about the consequences of a leave vote have proven far too pessimistic over the last couple of years. However, it would be rash to simply disregard the expertise of the likes of the Bank of England. Those models have a logical basis, and as someone who has been involved in economics and economic theory in the past, I think it is foolhardy to go on this adventure on a wing and a prayer without understanding or at least taking account of the experts whom we fund to supply us with this information. Even if those models are not a certain outcome, they are a real risk to jobs and businesses  across the country owing to the inevitable economic dislocation that may last only a few weeks or months but could last years.
I aspire to a future relationship based on a free trade deal with the EU and an ambitious drive to grow our links with the rising economies of Africa, Asia and Latin America, but if we have to take a little longer to get there in order to protect the livelihoods of my constituents, I am prepared to do that. Of course, Labour Members insist that such compromise is unnecessary, and that if only they were in power, they would deliver a deal that avoided all the difficult trade-offs that feature in real negotiations. Their so-called six tests are a mere wish list. It is extremely reckless for self-styled moderates to risk Britain crashing out of the EU by voting against a deal on the orders of leaders who see only an opportunity for political gain in the chaos that that would unleash.
The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) made a notable and wide-ranging speech earlier. It was incredibly thoughtful, and a prime example of the lawyer’s art. It was also a history lesson, and he danced on the head of a pin. Unfortunately, he did not take an intervention from me, despite my requests. Had he done so, I would have told him that the 9,000 car workers in my constituency—as well as those in the west midlands manufacturing supply chain, which has delivered the second biggest growth of anywhere in the UK over the past five years—and even the unions in those companies all want a withdrawal agreement. They want an orderly exit from the EU, and that should be front and centre in our minds. It should also be on the minds of Labour Members, and I know that it is for many of them.
I want to address my final comments to my own colleagues. Let us deliver Brexit. Let us leave the EU. Let us not, like Samson, bring the temple crashing down around us. Purity is never a fully achieved state beyond the womb, so let us compromise and work together right now to deliver on the referendum promise. Let us protect jobs and let us move forward, because if we do not, we are in serious danger of creating fissures in this country so deep that we will never be able to close them.

Chris Elmore: I am in no doubt that this is the most serious matter I am ever likely to vote on while serving in this House. It is crystal clear from the speeches that we have heard from hon. and right hon. Members right across the House, before and after the Christmas break, that the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal does not command a majority in the House. Furthermore, I do not believe that it commands a majority of support in the country. Today I want to lay out exactly why I cannot in all good conscience vote for this deal. The bottom line is this: I will not vote for my constituents to become poorer. I became an MP—as I am sure the majority of Members did—to improve the lives of all those living and working in my constituency. To vote for a proposal that would fundamentally undermine that notion would be a dereliction of my duty to my constituents as their Member of Parliament.
I fully appreciate that the Prime Minister has an incredibly difficult task to fulfil. There is no easy way to reconcile the 52% with the 48% while also reaching an  agreement that the EU27 and this House can agree on. Sadly, however, the Prime Minister has left us facing the worst of both worlds. We would be outside the European Union and economically weakened, but having to accept EU rules on which we would have little or no say. This deal does not please the 52% or the 48%. In truth, it seems to please no one at all.
There is little point in revisiting the events of the past three years, but I feel it is important to outline how I came to this position. I was not a Member of this House when the decision was taken to hold the referendum in 2016. Indeed, I was first elected only 49 days before the referendum took place. It goes without saying that I think David Cameron’s decision to gamble the future of our country and the stability of our Union to settle an age-old row within the Conservative party was an act that was as shameful as it was reckless. Following the referendum, I respected the result of the vote by going through the Division Lobby to trigger article 50. For me, that was a turning point. At that point, the Government could have sought real cross-party consensus among Members from all parts of the United Kingdom on negotiating a way forward. Instead, they have sought to subvert this House and the views of the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland at every turn.
Then of course we had the 2017 general election, when the Prime Minister, now infamously, said to us, “nothing has changed”. That may have been as true of the cruel austerity this Government have inflicted and continue to inflict on our communities as it has been of this Brexit deal. However, something did change at this point, which was that the British public simply said no: “No, we’re not going to give you a majority so you can bulldoze your hard Brexit through. You need to work together in the name of the national interest to find ways forward that will enable our country to prosper.”
The Prime Minister could have worked with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) to ensure the deal answered Labour’s six fundamental tests. These tests were indeed a high bar to set, but that is for a simple reason: Labour Members are not interested in securing a deal at any cost. Instead, we are committed to ensuring that our constituents in every corner of the United Kingdom, including my constituents, will be better off in the future than they are today.
More than 18 months on, in one regard at least clearly nothing has changed. The Prime Minister remains hellbent on selling this botched deal, which neither honours the referendum result nor answers the concerns of the 48% of people who voted to remain. Leading British entrepreneur and star of “Dragons’ Den” Deborah Meaden recently said, and this struck a chord with me:
“How did we end up here? I warn against this when doing deals all the time. Ending up accepting a position you would never have accepted at the start simply because you are intent on completing the deal”.
This comparison is a powerful one.
I would never be one to second-guess the electorate, but Members across the House have to ask themselves: if this deal and all its implications had been presented as the official leave campaign back in 2016, can they be confident we would still have had the same result? I do not think we would have, but that is what we are being asked to vote on. We are being asked to vote for something that supposedly honours the referendum result.
When we delve deeper and take a look at the impact this would have on people across my constituency, it becomes clear that this is not a situation I can accept on their behalf. Let us take manufacturing, which plays a key role in my constituency and across Wales, with 143,000 people employed by the manufacturing industry just in Wales alone. Whether it is insulation, toilet paper or parachutes, they are all made in my Ogmore constituency. The automotive sector is another large employer in my constituency. Those involved have repeatedly shared that their operations have already suffered as a result of uncertainty about future trading arrangements. I have also spoken to many farmers in my constituency, and they are worried about the future of their exports, with 90% of Welsh lamb currently being exported to countries in the EU. I fail to see how this withdrawal agreement provides any certainty for people living in Maesteg, Llanharan, Pencoed or for anyone else in my constituency that the industries that provide their income will have the certainty they need.
The political declaration is nothing short of a wish list, which binds us into years of further wrangling, using resources that we could divert to investing in the Welsh economy. Investing in projects such as the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, the long-awaited rail electrification beyond Cardiff and, indeed, all the thousands of projects across Wales that are supported by EU funding would be a far better use of our time and money and would be of far greater benefit to the people of Wales than the further uncertainty we have now been promised by this Government.
Indeed, we still have not had answers from Ministers about what will happen after 2022 to the £600 million of EU funding that supports businesses and projects across Wales to thrive. I invite Ministers to explain to the House today what will happen to this funding. If they fail to do so, they simply cannot argue that my constituents and Wales as a whole will be better off after Brexit. But, of course, we have not actually had any Ministers stating that the UK will be better off under this deal. The Government of the day are trying to sleepwalk us into a situation where we will be worse off and, to use the famous phrase, we will not be taking back control.
I know that 52% voted leave and 48% voted remain in 2016, but I can tell all Members another certainty about the so-called will of the people: not one of the 52% or the 48% voted for this. In my constituency—whether in relation to the nearby automotive industry, the steel industry, the public sector, the agricultural industry, shop workers, our pensioners or, might I add, our young people, who have had no say in all of this—I have yet to be presented with an argument from any single Government Minister that gives me confidence that this deal will make them better off or improve their lives.
Any Member, including your good self, Mr Speaker, will know that I am one of the Members who is a fan of procedure in this House and, indeed, of our unwritten constitution. I proudly sit, perhaps nerdily, on the Procedure Committee. If the Prime Minister is unable to get this deal through Parliament on Tuesday, it is constitutionally right that there should be a general election to let the country decide how Parliament and the country itself moves forward. If a Government—any Government through history—cannot command a majority in this House on their flagship piece of legislation, they must fall.  However, if we are unable to achieve that because of another of David Cameron’s ridiculous legacies, it is only right that with Parliament in deadlock, we put the question back to the people and let them decide. Parliament is sovereign, but we answer to the people. If we are unable to break the logjam, there remains no option but to let the public across all the nations that make up our great United Kingdom have a say.
Throughout this process, the Government have treated this House with contempt, they have treated the devolved Administrations with contempt and, above all, they have treated the communities we all represent across the United Kingdom with contempt. The Prime Minister’s delay before Christmas, which stopped Members like me speaking on the day the withdrawal debate was withdrawn, treated me with contempt. Opposition Members are sick of the nonsense from the Government.
I worry about what is happening in this country, because of the division, insecurity and uncertainty that members of the Government and the Prime Minister are placing on the British people. We have seen that just this week. The change in political discourse that we have seen over recent years is, of course, not unique to the United Kingdom. From the election of President Trump to the rise of the far right across Europe and the continuing threats to peace around the world, we are living through extraordinary times. Such times call for extraordinary solutions and a fundamental rethink of how we do things.
I am not for one minute saying that there is a silver bullet answer to the problems we face as a society, but I am 100% confident in saying that this deal does not even provide the first stepping stone towards bringing our country together. I know that members of the Government continue to parrot the line that we still wish to be an outward-looking nation, but as with line about the “country that works for everyone”, I have a grave fear that the reality behind the rhetoric will be as apparent as the Government’s majority in this House.
If this deal or a similar fudge is allowed to pass through this Parliament, I believe that years from now we will look back and ask ourselves a very simple question: was it worth it? I understand that many Members across the House will have grappled—and still will be grappling—with this question. To those who are still wavering, I say only this: until we can be sure that any deal will make our constituents better off and ensure that the next generation is more prosperous than the one that preceded it, we have a democratic duty to oppose it.
During his first speech to the House, Vernon Hartshorn, Ogmore’s first Labour MP who was elected just over 100 years ago, was told by another Member to “go back to Glamorgan” and talk to the miners he was standing up for in his speech. I am sure that Mr Hartshorn took this somewhat flippant advice on the chin. Indeed, he did just that and throughout his time in office continued to fight for the communities I now proudly represent and for the industries that support them. In voting against this deal more than 100 years on, I simply seek to do the same.

Douglas Ross: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). We have one thing in common, in that I was also due to  speak on the day the Government pulled the debate. I welcome the opportunity that all Members now have to put their views on the withdrawal agreement on the record in the House of Commons. I strongly disagreed with the Government’s decision not to proceed with the debate in early December. It seems that the only progress that has been made since is the progress towards the Brexit date. In respect of the deal, sadly nothing has changed.
I approach this debate as someone who voted remain, but I admit that I was a reluctant remainer. I was unsure what the future would hold if we left the European Union, but as someone from a farming background I saw many problems within the farming industry that were caused by the European Union. I did vote remain in 2016, but I am a democrat and I respect the decision taken by the country.
The Moray constituency, which I represent, was split right down the middle. After more than 48,000 votes were cast, just 122 separated leave and remain. I am acutely aware that no matter how I vote in this place, I will be unable to please all my constituents. Indeed, a combination of my strongest supporters and my fiercest critics will, for a combination of reasons, either wholeheartedly agree or disagree with how I ultimately vote. That is a situation that I and many others right hon. and hon. Members are in.
I also want to say at this point that I commend the Prime Minister for everything she has tried to do to achieve the deal. With the work she has put in, no one can question her determination and drive to ensure that there was a deal on the table. At every point in the process challenges were put in place. There are many aspects of the deal that I support, but there are others that I do not. In this debate, I will focus on the two key areas where I still have the most significant concerns.
The first surrounds the future of our fishing industry. While the number of fishing boats and active crews in Moray is just a fraction of what it once was, there are many people and many communities who still feel extremely strongly about this industry and are passionate in their feelings. I promised, at the election that brought me here and since then, that I could not support a deal that did not deliver for our fishing industry. I maintain that point of view.
I would say, however, that I fully understand why many of my Scottish Conservative colleagues feel they can support the deal with regard to fishing. The ambiguity in the wording suggests that we can become an independent coastal state with control over our waters and over who fishes what, where and when. Unfortunately, that same ambiguity in the wording allows many in the EU to feel they have the opportunity to maintain or even increase their access to UK waters going forward. I welcome the political declaration and what it has to say about the future of fishing, and indeed the Prime Minister’s own very strong stance on the issue, but I have to reconcile that with my own belief that if we as MPs vote with the Government next week, we will be rubber-stamping the deal with no guarantee that the promises in the political declaration will ever be achieved or delivered.
At this point, I would like to make mention of the Scottish National party, as we so often do. There are four of its Members here today. I have made my views clear—[Interruption.] I am just saying that I thought four was a good number for the SNP to have in the Chamber.  I have made very clear my views on the future of the fishing industry why I cannot support the deal because of them. It is rank hypocrisy, however, to hear from the SNP that they would stand up for the fishing industry. These are the same SNP Members who say they want Scotland to go back into the common fisheries policy as an independent country. They cannot claim to hate the CFP and then say they will go back in and reform it.

Stephen Gethins: rose—

Douglas Ross: I will definitely give way to the hon. Gentleman in a second, but I will do what he did—he gave way to me earlier on the proviso that I would answer his questions, so perhaps he will answer my question if I give way to him. How would the SNP reform the common fisheries policy, and how successful have any other reforms of the CFP been to date?

Stephen Gethins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I will slightly differ from him in that I will answer his question, while he did not answer mine. I urge him to read the Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill, which would have taken us out of the CFP while retaining our place in the EU and which his party rejected. Now can he tell me: how does our fishing community get the fabulous produce that is produced in his constituency and mine to the markets they need to get to if we are outside the customs union?

Douglas Ross: Mr Speaker, I have to be very careful with my language. I do not want to accuse the hon. Gentleman of misleading Parliament, but he did say, when he accepted my invitation to intervene on me, that he would answer my question and he has singly failed to do that. How would the SNP reform the common fisheries policy if we were an independent nation away from the United Kingdom trying to get back into the European Union? Yet again, SNP Members cannot answer that question, so they should not go back to fishing communities in Moray and across Scotland and say they would stand up for our fishing industry. It is very clear that they would not. There was a very clear decision in many coastal communities: they voted to leave the European Union because of the common fisheries policy. It is very clear that the only party that would take them back into it is the SNP.

Ross Thomson: Does my hon. Friend agree that even Scottish Government analysis shows that one of the biggest winners from Brexit will be the Scottish fishing industry? It is the stated policy of the Scottish Government to stop Brexit, which would throw that sea of opportunity away.

Douglas Ross: I agree with my hon. Friend. That evidence was given to the Scottish Affairs Committee in the House of Commons only today. The Scottish Government produced their own report showing the thousands of jobs that will come to the Scottish fishing industry and the huge boon that that will be to our economy.
The second issue that causes me concern, as a proud Scot in the United Kingdom, is the future of our Union. Many right hon. and hon. Members have passionately outlined their concerns about the backstop, and I echo those fears. We hear that the backstop will be bad for both the UK and the European Union so neither side will want to enter into it. As an alternative,  some have suggested extending the implementation period. Indeed, the Prime Minister mentioned that at Prime Minister’s questions today, and the Secretary of State also said in his opening remarks that the Government now support the proposal for MPs to vote on either extending the implementation period or entering the backstop. For me, however, neither of those options is suitable, because extending the implementation period would cause as many problems as the backstop itself. We would remain tied to the European Union and, for example, the common fisheries policy for longer, abiding by their rules while having absolutely no influence over the policies.
On the backstop, I have found ambiguity where I wanted certainty. Article 132 of the withdrawal agreement allows for a one-off extension of the transition period
“for up to one or two years.”
That is very particular wording. Why not a one-off extension for up to a maximum of 24 months? I have sought Government legal advice and the opinion of several Cabinet members, and they are also unable to agree. Some believe “up to” means that it could be a few months, while others believe it means up to one full year or up to two full years because any extension by the EU would have to run for a full year’s budget. We do not have clarity on that important issue, which the Government are now offering as a solution to concerns over the backstop.
I also note what has been said today about a possible veto for Stormont, but that does not address all the issues with the backstop. Today of all days—the second anniversary of the Assembly collapsing in Northern Ireland—the proposal seems to have been rejected by the DUP, the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Féin, so it seems to be struggling to garner support anywhere.

David Simpson: I assume that the hon. Gentleman understands how seriously my party takes the backstop with regard to Northern Ireland—I am glad he has mentioned it. He said that he was a reluctant remain voter. Has he now had a road to Damascus experience with regard to Brexit?

Douglas Ross: If the hon. Gentleman listens for another 90 seconds, he will be able to decide whether I have trod that road.
After weeks of wrestling with my concerns about the agreement and seeking assurances over the issues I have highlighted, I have not been able to resolve them. I would like to support the Prime Minister and my Government, but I must also stand up for those who elect me. This is not a decision I have reached quickly or easily, and I am sure that, ultimately, history will judge each and every MP on how we vote and decide whether we got it right or wrong. In doing so, however, history will have the benefit of hindsight—something none of us is blessed with.
My decision comes down to this: my overarching belief that I am elected to this place to be Moray’s voice in Westminster, and not Westminster’s voice in Moray. I have to put my constituents and my constituency ahead of my party and my Government. It is for that reason, Mr Speaker, that when this debate concludes and you call the Division on the withdrawal agreement, it will be  with a heavy heart but a clear conscience that I will not be able to support the Government and I will vote against this agreement.

Jo Swinson: Two and a half years ago the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and promised to tackle society’s burning injustices. I for one was glad to hear that speech, and I hoped that it would mark a real change in direction from this Government.
We could debate endlessly the reasons why people voted to leave the European Union, and of course they were varied. For many, however, there was a feeling that the system is broken, that working hard is no guarantee of getting on, and a fear that their children will end up worse off than they are, earning less, finding it harder to secure a decent home. People, rightly and understandably, feel angry about that. However, instead of the radical changes needed to our economy and society, the energy and attention of our Government have been sucked into the black hole of Brexit. Nothing has changed for those the Prime Minister vowed to help. Those injustices still fuel discontent. We have an underfunded universal credit system bringing misery to thousands. We are in the midst of a housing crisis in which many children are living in heartbreaking conditions and vulnerable people are sleeping on our streets—and dying on them, too. None of that will be resolved by leaving the EU. None of that will be resolved by the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal.
The leave campaign said we would take back control, but to many of my constituents—to the mother of two who contacted me because she was worried about her family’s security after the Prime Minister called her husband a “queue jumper”; to the scientist concerned about jobs in Glasgow once the life sciences industry loses vital European funding; and to the businesses that do not even know on what terms they will be able to sell to our biggest trading partner in three months’ time—it feels like we are doing the very opposite.
Five years ago, I fought passionately to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom. Together, we are stronger. Our economy is more successful and our influence is greater. We can pool risks. Our businesses benefit from selling to a larger market, without barriers. We share values. We share our history. We share a desire for our loved ones in different parts of the country to be able to live, work and travel where they want with ease. I am certain that Scotland’s best future is in the United Kingdom, and for the same reasons I believe the United Kingdom’s interests are best served within the European Union.
In 2017, the people of East Dunbartonshire elected me to fight for Scotland’s position in the UK and for the United Kingdom’s position in the EU. That is the manifesto I stood on. The Liberal Democrats have led the fight for a people’s vote so we keep the benefits of our EU membership and remain a leading and influential member of the world’s most successful economic and political bloc. I am delighted that so many MPs from all parties are coming together and working beyond party lines for the public to have the final say on a deal, with the option of keeping our EU membership.

Deidre Brock: At the end of the day, if push came to shove—if we came to a crunch—and there was a choice only between Scotland remaining in the UK and Scotland remaining in Europe, which would the hon. Lady choose?

Jo Swinson: We are trying to unpick a Union we have been in for 40 years. Look at the chaos that is causing. The last thing we need is the chaos of trying to unpick a Union of 300 years. If this experience tells us anything, it is how disastrous that would be.
We need a people’s vote. Two and a half years on, we know that leaving the European Union will not make us richer. It will not bring in £350 million a week for the NHS, despite what that bus said, and it will not be the
“easiest trade deal in human history,”
despite what the International Trade Secretary said. Those were fantasies of the leave campaign. Brexit has become a national embarrassment. It will make us poorer, it will hurt our NHS and it will weaken our Union.
Perhaps strangely, I have recently found myself agreeing with both the former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), and the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Prime Minister’s deal is worse than staying in the EU—we would be bound by the rules but lose our say over them—but the Prime Minister is right that this is the best Brexit on offer.
I despair at the arrogance of those, whether they sit on the Conservative Benches or the Labour Front Bench, who claim that they could negotiate a better deal. They live in the land of make-believe. Here in the real world, there are no magic beans to put food on the table and there are no pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. Even my five-year-old could tell them that unicorns are not real. And, frankly, I am horrified by those who are so cavalier that they countenance no deal as a serious option. How lovely it must be to live in an ivory tower, claiming French residency or setting up investment funds in Dublin as the poorest people in society pay the price for an ideological Brexit.
Quite simply, there is no deal that will ever be as good as being members of the European Union; there is no Brexit that works for the whole United Kingdom; there is no Brexit that keeps our economy strong and jobs safe; there is no Brexit that gives us first-class public services. We need a way out of this mess. We should give people the chance to choose, in full knowledge of the Brexit deal on offer, what future they want for their children. I urge the House to vote down this deal and call for a people’s vote.

Paul Masterton: It is a pleasure to be called, Mr Speaker. As a Member who was denied the opportunity to speak first time around, I am pleased finally to get the opportunity to speak up and set out my views on this important issue.
On the withdrawal agreement itself, I wish to focus on my main area of concern, which, unsurprisingly, is the backstop. There is no question but that the backstop has the potential to build a regulatory border in the Irish sea beyond that which already exists, although I accept that it would be in areas where divergence is  fairly unlikely, such as industrial goods standards. While I am satisfied that the backstop will not create any new material differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on day one, it clearly provides a mechanism for those differences to appear and deepen over time. With no guarantee as to how long the backstop will operate, we will be in a constant political battle between loosening ties with the EU—and with it Northern Ireland—and keeping our country aligned and so failing to take back control in a variety of areas. Given that none of us can see into the future, I am concerned that the backstop will not future proof the integrity of the Union in the long term, if we find ourselves using it for more than a couple of years.
All these issues have been long rehearsed, so I will not dwell on them further, but the fact is that without a backstop there is no deal, and if there is no deal, there is no transition period. That is why I strongly welcome the paper the Government released today, which is probably the most explicitly Unionist statement by a UK Government in at least a couple of decades. I was grateful primarily because of the request I have made of numerous Secretaries of State that the Government continue to work at ensuring a role for the Northern Irish Assembly—and Executive, if it is sitting—as was included in paragraph 50 of the December joint report, in order to ensure regulatory divergence has an element of consent. There are areas, of course, where Northern Ireland would wish to follow new EU rules—for example, to protect the single energy market—but there will be an issue if that is imposed over the heads of the politicians and institutions of Northern Ireland, particularly where it creates new barriers or materially increases an existing barrier with Great Britain. I wonder, however, if the commitment to domestic legislation could be strengthened and whether there is some mechanism by which it could be incorporated into the withdrawal agreement to give the greater certainty that the DUP and the Ulster Unionist party are looking for?
Moving on to the political declaration, Opposition Members are right: it is thin and does not provide a clear pathway to what our future relationship will look like. Instead, it provides a spectrum of opportunities for where we could end up. It seems to point in a direction slightly looser than the Chequers deal, which was a proposal I was quite comfortable with when it was settled on. Ultimately, it kicks the can down the road on all the major issues until the middle of 2020.
We have to be prepared for months of further argument on all these points domestically before we even get to the EU negotiating table, and those negotiations will be tough. I hope the Government have learned some lessons from this first phase of negotiations in terms of how they organise themselves and how they construct a negotiating position and work better with the various groupings in this Parliament so that when they properly start negotiating the second phase, they do so with a strong domestic mandate. That is the only way we will get a meaningful and lasting agreement with the EU that works.
I believe that the Prime Minister has reached the best deal that could have been achieved within the parameters set out in the negotiations. It is a compromise. It is not the deal that I wanted, but its acceptance would bring some certainty and allow us to move forward. It achieves many of the things that the EU said were not on  the table. It is a bespoke arrangement that maintains industrial tariffs at zero and keeps us closely aligned but without the jurisdiction of the ECJ. Cherries have been picked and cake has certainly been eaten.
I come back to the fundamental point that it is risk to vote down the deal in the hope that something better will materialise. My inbox is full of emails from constituents asking me to vote down the deal but in order to get a range of different outcomes, and they cannot all get what they want. For me, this is not about rolling the dice. It is not about whether I or my constituents who use 38 Degrees can afford for the gamble not to come off and to end up somewhere worse. I have to make this call in the interests of the 90,000 people of East Renfrewshire, where there are wildly different views and personal circumstances. Many of my constituents simply cannot afford for this not to work out. If I were to vote against the deal, and if no other magical solution arrived and we crashed out in March, I would feel wholly responsible for the economic impact on families and communities in my constituency that would result. I fully appreciate the range of views across the House, but I do not personally feel that I could be complicit in that outcome, and I will therefore support the deal on Tuesday.
A vote against the deal is not a vote to stop Brexit—if it were, dozens of my colleagues would not be preparing to bring it down—but, facing all the facts, I think that it seems likely to be rejected. Let me repeat a statement that I have always made, and which, indeed, I made at my selection meeting in 2017: I will not support a no-deal Brexit. In East Renfrewshire, 75% voted to remain in the European Union. Mine is the highest Remain-voting seat held by a Conservative. My election was not the result of a promise in our manifesto to deliver Brexit but the result of a promise to protect the Union, and the greatest threat of the Union is a chaotic no-deal Brexit.
If the deal is voted down, I will work with colleagues on both sides of the House to put in place an achievable plan B. I will continue to argue for my preferred alternative of remaining in the European economic area as a member of the European Free Trade Association, with a bespoke customs protocol to protect the position in Northern Ireland. I will argue for a rejection of the political institutions of the EU but a retention of the principles at the heart of why we joined: a Common Market 2.0. We will need the withdrawal agreement for that, but I make a commitment to my constituents to re-evaluate my position with a genuinely open mind.
I urge the Prime Minister, if the deal is defeated, to announce immediately that there will be indicative votes on a series of options, on a free vote, so that we can properly test the mood of the House. In the weeks ahead, I will vote in the manner that secures a sensible and orderly exit from the European Union, and sets us on a pathway to a future relationship that works for East Renfrewshire and every part of our United Kingdom. I will vote—not just on Tuesday, but in every vote thereafter—in the manner that I consider to be in the best interests of this great nation. Ultimately, that is the only way I shall be able to go home from this place and look my constituents, and my children, in the eye, knowing that I did what I felt was right for them and their futures.
There are many Conservative Members who, like me, voted to remain but accept, admittedly reluctantly and with some misgivings, that we are leaving the European Union. We have compromised at every stage of the process to try to find a way to make this work, and the deal before us is as far as I am prepared to go. If some of my colleagues want to blow this up in pursuit of an ideologically purist fantasy, fine—go ahead—but I am done. My patience and good will will be gone, along with the patience and good will of many other Conservative Members.
Would it not be something if, when the history books are written, it emerged that it was owing to the arrogance and belligerence of the hardline Brexiteers in refusing to compromise that, rather than ending up with this imperfect Brexit, they ended up with no Brexit at all?

Nick Smith: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), and it is an honour to speak in probably the most important debate that has taken place during my time in the House.
Given that there is less than three months before we leave the European Union, we urgently need a good Brexit deal. What we have seen, however, is the Health Secretary almost boasting about buying thousands of extra fridges in which to store vital medicines in case we crash out of the European Union in March. How on earth has it come to this? We have ended up here because of the Government’s catastrophic failure to negotiate a good deal in good time. This is a Government who had no real idea what they wanted, a Government who have spent more than two years negotiating with their own Back Benchers, and a Government who have tried to sideline Parliament at every turn.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has set out the key failings of this deal at length, so I will restate our Labour view very briefly. The deal does not meet our tests, and it certainly does not work for our country. I have always set one key test for any Brexit deal: does it give people in Blaenau Gwent security about their future after the UK has left the EU? This deal fails to do that, mainly because it is bad for trade and jobs. Crucially, it does not guarantee tariff or barrier-free access to European markets for our businesses.
Our economy has millions of moving parts. Many manufacturing industries rely on just-in-time supply chains, with daily deliveries of key components. A no-deal Brexit would cause chaos, particularly for our automotive, farming and food processing sectors. Around 3 million jobs across the UK depend on trade with the EU—100,000 in Wales. Any disruption to supplies or extra hurdles when exporting goods would have an impact on people’s livelihoods at the other end. The best way to protect livelihoods is through a permanent customs union and strong regulatory alignment with the EU. That is why a permanent customs union is backed not only by Labour, but by the TUC and the CBI. However, the Government have completely ruled out that sensible step that would protect jobs and the economy. Without it, our businesses do not have the guarantees they need, workers and consumers do not have the assurances they deserve, and my constituents do not have the certainty about their jobs that they should have.
When I speak to my leave-voting constituents, many want the same things. Some still want to leave but recognise that it is complicated, some have expressed sympathy for the Prime Minister, and some have even expressed sympathy for me, but we all see a Government at sixes and sevens, with no obvious way through this impasse. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor set out, Labour wants a Brexit that puts jobs first. If the Prime Minister still cannot provide that, we need a general election. If that is not possible, we must consider extending article 50, so that we do not crash out, or a further vote. One thing is for certain, though: I cannot vote for this Prime Minister’s mangled deal.

Stephen Kerr: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and to take part in this debate, which is historic by any definition. I rise to speak in support of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, because my fundamental political belief is in pragmatism. I am no ideologue or absolutist, and the success of the Conservative and Unionist party has been its willingness to adapt to present realities, and to work practically to deliver what is in the national interest.
It is in the national interest for us to leave the European Union in an orderly way, by agreement, and to continue to have close and co-operative relationships with our European neighbours. It is in the national interest for us to achieve a free trade arrangement whereby we can continue to trade freely across borders without the encumbrance of barriers, tariffs and burdensome charges. It is in the best interests of our economy, businesses and jobs for this Parliament to get a grip on the practicalities of our predicament. It is in the interests of our democracy and public confidence in Parliament for this House to deliver on the instruction of the British people that we should leave the European Union. The people’s vote of June 2016 answered the question asked of the people by this House. This House must now honour that answer.
We must be careful to ensure that our opposition to the deal is not simply about waiting for a perfect one. What we have on the table before us is not a perfect deal. It is not an entirely comfortable deal, but it is acceptable. Compared with the risk of leaving the European Union in a disorderly way, without an agreement, this agreement is a good agreement. It secures the rights of citizens and provides for a transition period and an orderly departure from the European Union. I would much prefer no backstop, but I accept that the commitments that we have given to the people of Northern Ireland, which we must honour, make a backstop of some form or another an inevitable element of any agreement of any description.

David Simpson: I respect the hon. Gentleman, as he knows. He talks about the backstop and Northern Ireland; he said he will support this agreement, but does he understand the difficulty that we have with the backstop, and the serious repercussions it will have for the future of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?

Stephen Kerr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The respect that he describes is reciprocated—to him, and indeed to all his colleagues, whom I recognise as Unionists. I do understand the complexities, and a lot of the emotion as well, around the issue of Northern Ireland’s place in the United  Kingdom, but I have thought long and hard about Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland, and I believe that the backstop does not have to, and must not, represent a threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom, and that those of us who want to honour the decision of the people on 26 June must work together to make Brexit happen. Otherwise, we will have a crisis of political confidence in this country. There are so many people—sadly, on both sides of this House—who do not want to honour the result the people gave us in June 2016. The alternatives on offer are this agreement, no Brexit, or a hard, no-deal Brexit. I will come back to those points, but I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Negotiations are about achieving the acceptable, but very rarely about achieving the perfect. The withdrawal agreement is a predictable compromise that is bearable for both sides—and, crucially, it delivers on the referendum result.
Since shortly after being elected to this House, I have served on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Its latest report revisited evidence we had received 12 months earlier from businesses in strategically critical sectors of the UK economy—automotive, aerospace, pharmaceutical, and food and drink. We collected evidence on their response to the withdrawal agreement, and as we make clear in the report’s conclusion, while they would have preferred to have stuck with the status quo, they now need clarity and certainty, and for that reason, their consistent message to the Committee, and to the House through the report, is that we should support the withdrawal agreement. They were also very respectful of our democracy and accepted the result of the June 2016 referendum—something that so many in this House seem unprepared to do. These business leaders were prepared to accept that result, and they were actively seeking to apply a pragmatic approach to an undoubtedly complex set of problems. It is now for us parliamentarians to be pragmatic and deliver the certainty that businesses need, and we do that by supporting the withdrawal agreement.
I am a Unionist; it is core to who I am. I have an unshakeable belief in our country and its peoples, in Scotland and in the United Kingdom, the most successful political union in the history of the world. My warning to colleagues is simply this: nationalism is waiting in the wings. The withdrawal agreement is, in my judgment, no threat to the Union, but no deal is. The threat in Scotland is from the Scottish Nationalists; they want the disruption that no deal would bring, because their nationalism is more important to them than any other issue. They and their leader make no secret of the fact that their single unifying purpose is to break up the United Kingdom, and that transcends every other single issue, economic or social. They want chaos; they want the disruption, because they believe it will give them the platform to launch their bid, much talked about within their ranks, for a second independence referendum, so that they can break up the United Kingdom.
I say to those who advocate no deal, particularly Conservative Members, that to me, as a Scottish Unionist, they exhibit some of the same symptoms as the SNP. Like the SNP, they appear to be prepared to sacrifice jobs and prosperity to realise their version of our future.

Alan Brown: The hon. Gentleman talks about nationalism. Who gave EU citizens the vote in the 2014 referendum? Who gave EU citizens the voting franchise, and who did not?

Stephen Kerr: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman’s intervention amounts to, but I am grateful for his having had the opportunity to make it.
I appeal to colleagues, particularly Conservative colleagues, not to sacrifice the good for the sake of an unrealisable perfect. A second referendum, a no-deal Brexit or a general election all point to more uncertainty, and I cannot support any of those outcomes. We must remember that we voted as one United Kingdom to leave the EU.
My constituents in Stirling are weary of Brexit and of the shenanigans that go on in this House. They want us to move on. They want us to turn the page. Every single one of them wants us to deal with the pressing issues that affect their life and the life chances of their family. Irrespective of who they are or their story, we need to deliver stability and certainty. We need to turn the page. Voting for this agreement is the best way to do that, and I commend it to the House.

Gavin Robinson: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr)—he is truly an honourable gentleman. He was about to conclude his speech by saying that we voted as one Union and that we should leave as one Union. Well, I am a Member of Parliament for a part of this Union that is going to be left behind, and I will develop that point further. He fairly conceptualises what the aspiration was but, sadly, the faults and flaws of this withdrawal agreement rest in the concluding sentence that he never quite reached.
I, like the hon. Gentleman, am not an ideologue on this issue. Three of my hon. and right hon. Friends are sitting around me, all intently listening, and they know what I have said to them privately. For my whole life, Northern Ireland and this United Kingdom have been a part of the European Union. I have known nothing else, and it has not been a motivating or driving factor for me politically. It did not lead me to come to Parliament to campaign to leave.
I campaigned, very enjoyably, with the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) in my constituency of Belfast East during the 2016 referendum. I proudly voted leave because I was frustrated by the fear, the threats and the intimidation from those who said, “If you don’t do what you’re told, Northern Ireland will descend back into chaos. If you don’t do what is expected of you, the peace process is in jeopardy.” I found that line offensive.
I campaigned for a leave vote believing there was aspiration in what was being outlined, and believing that the people of this country engaged with that aspiration. Today, motivated not by leaving the European Union but by Unionism, I find it offensive that we have a Government, a Parliament and neighbours in the European Union who want to undermine our precious Union. It is deeply disappointing and it is not where we should be. It goes against every grain of my political ideology and it goes against the grain of the Prime Minister’s expressed political ideology.
The Belfast agreement has been mentioned quite a few times in this debate by Government and Opposition Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Stirling, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)  and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) all talked about the Belfast agreement. The Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), indicated that the Belfast agreement—that hard-fought document for peace—contains a commitment to an open border in Ireland. It simply does not. I will give way to any Member of Parliament who wants to explain to me where that provision is in the Belfast agreement. It is not there. It is based on mutual respect, interconnected co-operation and better relationships between the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland.
What has gone wrong in this withdrawal process? What fundamental problems has the Prime Minister made? The first was to believe the political aspirations of others over what her own head should have told her. The Belfast agreement does not preclude a border on the island of Ireland. There is a border on the island of Ireland. We have differentials in duty rates. We have physical infrastructure. It was a mistake to believe that the aspiration to have no hard border on the island of Ireland meant that there should be no infrastructure whatsoever, because there is infrastructure today. There is this fanciful notion of cameras being attacked or any infrastructure being subject to vandalism or worse, but it is there today. There are cameras right across the main roads and arterial routes that take people from Northern Ireland to the south. We have different currencies and we implement different rules and laws. We have smuggling as a consequence of the fact that we have tariff differentials. As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) knows that full well, as does the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet.
Secondly, as a country we were wrong to accept the premise that we had to solve the border question without knowing what the trading relationship was going to be. Who decided that that was a good negotiating strategy? How do we provide the answer when we do not know what the question is? Yet these are the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We accepted that premise from the European Union.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I have every sympathy with the position expressed by the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and understand entirely his motivation, yet for me the major issue is that according to the Attorney General’s interpretation of the backstop, in circumstances in which the backstop becomes operational, Northern Ireland must treat Great Britain as a third country for trade purposes. That offends my Unionism. It offends my sense of being part of the United Kingdom. Surely that is the issue that we need to address and resolve.

Gavin Robinson: My right hon. Friend and party Chief Whip is of course absolutely right.
The third and final thing that we were foolish to accept was the notion that there had to be a solution to the border problem because in the event of no deal there would be a hard border. What did we see just before Christmas? The publication of the preparation plans from the European Union and the Dublin Government. What was strangely absent from those  documents? Any provision for border infrastructure. It is a shibboleth. We have spent two years tearing ourselves apart trying to solve an issue that does not amount to a hill of beans.
I have to represent constituents in east Belfast who have a range of opinions, but there is one recurring theme: reject this deal. People say, “Reject the withdrawal agreement because it does not honour the aspirations of Brexit”; “Reject this deal because I want to stay in the European Union”; and “Reject this deal because I want a second referendum.” What is the thing that unifies them all? It is the rejection of this deal.
The White Paper published today does nothing to satisfy the constitutional concerns that we have. This is not just about economics. The withdrawal agreement outlines a scenario where we would not only have to face, but have coerced upon us, further implementation of forthcoming EU regulations, not to mention the 300 that are already there, which were referred to in the Attorney General’s advice and which span 69 pages. These 300 pieces of legislation will apply to Northern Ireland compulsorily. They could apply to the rest of the United Kingdom voluntarily. It is offensive to me as a Unionist that we need an Act of Parliament in this place to recognise our part of this country. That cannot be right. That should not be right.
When the Prime Minister spoke in the Waterfront Hall in Belfast on 20 July 2018, she said that the reality is that any agreement we reach with the European Union will have to provide for the frictionless movement of goods across the Northern Ireland border. We accept that. She went on to say that equally clear is that, as the United Kingdom Government, we could never accept that the way to prevent a hard border with Ireland is to create a new border with the United Kingdom. Sadly, that is what we have.
When the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland spent time before Christmas going around trying to sell this withdrawal agreement, she was filmed on BBC Newsline with a group of ladies from the Resurgam Trust in Lagan Valley who said, “Secretary of State, we don’t like this deal because it treats Northern Ireland differently.” With all the majesty of her office, the Secretary of State said, “It does not treat Northern Ireland differently.” And do you know what? The ladies were not in a position to challenge her authority on the matter. Yet there is no annex for Aylesbury; there is no protocol for any other part of the United Kingdom in this withdrawal agreement. There are no separate provisions, no backstop, no loss of democratic accountability or democratic involvement in the production or the assessment of future regulations on our trading relationships, and the White Paper today does not change that. We can see it in the withdrawal agreement—we can see it in the text—that the UK Government are committing to enforcing, over the heads of the Assembly and its Members if they were to disagree, implementation of rules over which we have no democratic control or say. That is not taking back control. Mr Speaker, you have heard and presided over sessions and speeches in this Chamber, and heard speeches outwith this Chamber, that have continually said that this is about taking back control of our laws, our borders and our money. On that test, this withdrawal agreement fails.
I do not want to extinguish hope, and I will conclude with this: the next number of months will undoubtedly be febrile in this place, as they have been, and within  the country. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his colleagues and his team in delivering on the referendum commitment. All we ask is that Northern Ireland is not treated differently than any other part of this United Kingdom; that we honour our shared commitments, our shared history, our shared values and our shared aspirations; that we do it collectively; and that we work, post Tuesday, on how best we deliver a workable solution.

Colin Clark: I was fortunate to speak in the December debate, so I will do my best to be brief. It is a tremendous honour to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). He has made a very powerful case and he demonstrates his tremendously strong rhetorical skills.
I listened to the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union very closely. In his words, he said that this is not a vote about Labour’s proposals; I agree. We are voting on the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. I agree with the withdrawal agreement and I will be supporting it. I listened to Labour’s desire for a customs union and for a close relationship with the EU to protect our vital Union of the United Kingdom and to protect business and jobs. The shadow Secretary of State agreed with the Government Front-Bench team that there must be a withdrawal agreement to protect citizens’ rights. I echo the words of the Minister for the Cabinet Office that this should not be about semantics. This is not about Labour’s plan, but that is because there have been so many versions of Labour’s plan. The Government have had to come up with a finely negotiated plan, which we are now trying to get through this House.
The shadow Secretary of State said that he had agonised over voting for article 50. That set off a time-limited process, which we had to negotiate with the EU, and here we are; we have nearly arrived at the end of it. During that time, I have never heard a concise, cohesive plan from the Opposition. I can only conclude that despite the deal’s perceived faults—to avoid no deal, and to protect jobs and citizens’ rights, as the shadow Secretary of State agreed a deal should do—and recognising that there must be a withdrawal agreement and, I am afraid, a backstop, Members on both sides of the House, following on from article 50, support the deal. It is the next step so that we can negotiate our future with the EU and the rest of the world. This is in stark contrast with those who simply do not agree with Brexit, although I respect that that is what they campaigned on.
The SNP rejected Brexit pretty well in the same way that it rejected the result of the independence referendum. SNP Members quote figures of doom and gloom, which is disappointing because we are here to be optimistic. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said that that those who oppose this deal could be the handmaidens of a hard deal—of no deal. This disappoints me, because back in 2014, as a consequence of possible separation, the SNP was happy to negotiate with the EU as a third party. That is in tremendous contrast with the suggestion of Armageddon, when we would have to negotiate with the EU as a third party.
Industries in my Gordon constituency have embraced Brexit. In good faith, they expect elected politicians here actually to get on with it, so I implore the SNP and  others who reject Brexit to think again, to deliver on what we pledged and to respect the Brexit referendum with a deal that works for business and jobs. These industries want us to make progress and move on to the next step, because the political declaration leaves a great deal of scope. There are not many Members present on either side of the Conservative side of this debate, but the political declaration would allow scope for a deal that would very much accommodate what both sides of the debate on the Conservative Benches and the Opposition are arguing for.
The Government are making no-deal preparations. The Treasury Committee heard from the Bank of England that the financial system is robust in all situations. That is a very good thing and that is what the stress-testing was; it was not suggesting that the economy would drop by 10%. We cannot go back. The country has moved on, but it seems that this place is frozen in time while the rest of the country is moving on, including my constituency. I heard on the radio this morning the chairman of the port of Calais, who said that the trucks will keep moving under all circumstances. The rest of the world and the rest of Europe is moving on, while this place is frozen—stuck back in the EU referendum.
We know that the currency markets and the stock market have built-in risk, and that companies have pent up investment in their balance sheets; as we heard on the Treasury Committee, their balance sheets are in rude health. My good and hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) said that he is a pragmatist. Well, I am an optimist and I believe that there can be a positive result from Brexit, so next week let us give the economy and the mood of a nation a lift. Let us support the Prime Minister’s deal and get on with Brexit.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his magnificent succinctness, upon which he should be congratulated.

Sharon Hodgson: As we have a little more time than I thought we would, before I get into the substance of my speech tonight I just want to start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for your support with regard to the harassment and targeting of MPs on and around the estate. The abuse that the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and others on both sides of this House and this issue are being subjected to is truly despicable and genuinely worrying for the stability of our democracy. My worry is that the genie may be out of the bottle and the country may not heal for decades, no matter what happens here. That is why, as others have said, this is probably the most important decision and vote that I will have made in my almost 14 years as an MP, and perhaps may ever make.
I say this as I have had brought to my attention details of a threat that I have just received, calling me
“a traitor who should be hung for treason”.
This threat was not even made anonymously. It was made very publicly and traceably, and the man—I believe it is a man because I have seen a photograph of him—who made this threat must know that it is public and easily traceable, which makes this change in our national and political discourse all the more worrying. My crime that  precipitated this threat was to be one of the 213 MPs of all parties to have signed the letter against crashing out without a deal—which we now know, after the vote last night and today, is the will of the majority of Members in this House. I say all this to reinforce the point about the pressure of the political climate that we are all operating in and dealing with. I know that none of us is taking any of this lightly at the moment.
Two years ago, over 62% of people in Sunderland voted to leave the European Union. That is an average across the three Sunderland constituencies. My canvassing told me at the time that the vote in my constituency may have been more in the region of 65% to 67%. The fact that—as I am sure you know, Mr Speaker—Nissan, the most productive car plant in the whole of Europe, is in my constituency explains why that first result on results night had the impact that it did on all of us, not just the three Sunderland MPs. I campaigned and voted to remain in the European Union, and did so because I believed that it was the best decision for the security, social cohesion and economy of the north-east and the country as a whole. Despite this, I recognised that a majority of my constituents had voted to leave, and I set out to respect the result of the referendum.
In that vein, I have largely refrained from commenting publicly on Brexit or speaking about it here—check Hansard!—choosing instead to listen to my constituents to understand the result, the vote. So I ran two surveys on Brexit. I took great care to read all of the significant amount of correspondence I received on the topic. I held three large public meetings. I engaged regularly with major employers in my constituency, such as Nissan, Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems and others, to hear their concerns about the process as it has unfolded over the past two years. Many of these companies, in particular, have been unnecessarily placed in a position by this Government where they are already spending vast sums of money on preparations for a no-deal scenario—something that none of us here will ever allow to happen.
Voting, and how one votes, is an extremely personal decision, and it would be wrong of us to claim to know exactly what led people to vote in the way that they did. We do know, however, what issues come up on the doorstep, in emails and letters, and through polls and surveys. We also know what was promised to people. As part of the survey that I ran last year—I ran one straight after the referendum and then one again last year—I asked people who had voted to leave in 2016 to rate a number of factors involved in their decision from “very important” to “unimportant”. The three issues with the highest number of people ranking them “very important” were, first, the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK; secondly, concerns that remaining would mean little or no choice about how the EU expanded its membership or powers; and thirdly, the incentive of trade opportunities outside the EU. It will be noticed that in this sample, immigration did not make the top three of the “very important” issues. It was an issue that people could choose but was actually near the bottom of the list in the final analysis. Make of that what you will.
During the referendum, people were also promised that voting to leave would mean more money for the NHS, more controls on immigration, and significant trade opportunities around the world—and ultimately that it would mean “taking back control”.

Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend accept that they were also led to believe by the leave campaign that this would be a very simple process?

Sharon Hodgson: Absolutely. That would be one of the biggest ironies of any of our political careers, as we are all finding out that it is anything but simple. It has got to be the most complicated thing I have ever had to try to get my head around.
Can anyone in this place honestly say that the deal on offer delivers any of the things I have listed? Far from delivering back control, this deal means giving up our voice within the EU and becoming rule-takers until at least 2020, at which point the problematic backstop could come into place. The Government’s own analysis shows that the economic benefit of further trade deals around the world is minimal, will not come for a while and will be outweighed by GDP falling by around 3.9% under their deal.
With regard to immigration, the Government’s recent White Paper failed to provide overall clarity on the issue and included plans to disgracefully label workers on less than £30,000 a year as “low-skilled”. That policy will only contribute to existing staffing shortages in the NHS in particular, as it rules out nurses, care assistants and paramedics coming from abroad. As shadow Minister for Public Health, I am well placed to know that the much promised extra money for the NHS—remember the £350 million on the side of that big red bus?—could not be further from the truth.
It is no wonder that all this lack of clarity has left people on both sides of the debate hugely disappointed. Indeed, in recent weeks I have received hundreds of emails, letters and postcards regarding this deal, as I am sure every single Member of the House has. There are people who say that the Prime Minister’s deal fails to respect the result of the referendum and would like me to vote against it. There are people who would like me to vote against this deal and then push for a people’s vote. There are people who would like to bypass another vote altogether and for us to remain a member of the European Union. There are people who would like a Norway or Canada-style deal, and there are people who believe that we would now be better off leaving the EU without any deal at all.
However, it is astonishingly clear from the percentages of 87% to 13% that very few people would like me to vote for this deal. It is no wonder that almost 60% of those who took part in my survey now think that the electorate, as well as Parliament, should have to approve any deal agreed with the EU before it is ratified.
Almost nothing of what was promised and expected has been delivered. People who voted to leave the EU are not happy with this deal. People who voted to remain in the EU are not happy with this deal, and 87% of my constituents who contacted me about this deal are against it. As such, I will be voting against it when the question is put on Tuesday.

John Bercow: What an extraordinarily succinct contribution that was. Of course I am paying attention; I never cease to do so.

Carol Monaghan: The public, frankly, are fed up with this, but they are also worried. I have been overwhelmed with correspondence  from my constituents, 69% of whom voted to remain, and many of whom have since changed from leave to remain supporters. They have raised concerns about the treatment of EU nationals and the impact that it will have on the NHS, and they are angry at the tone of the negotiations. Today’s carry-on after Prime Minister’s questions does nothing to restore anyone’s faith in the Government or the Tory party.

Patrick Grady: My hon. Friend says that many of her constituents are moving from leave to remain. Is it not the case that many of them are also moving from no to yes on the question of Scottish independence as they watch this play out?

Carol Monaghan: That is exactly what many of the emails say—they voted no in 2014 because of their concern about European Union membership, and now their worst concerns are coming to pass.
I was in Romania last year as part of a parliamentary delegation. Everywhere we went, there was a celebration of Europe and its membership of the European Union. People showed great pride in the country having been a member since 2007. It was notable that one issue raised fairly regularly with the delegation was the brain drain that Romania was experiencing. It was seeing its most talented and very best young people moving to other parts of Europe. We gain benefit from that, and we should continue to.
Let us compare that with the UK. We joined a trade organisation very reluctantly in the early 1970s because we were being economically disadvantaged by not being a member of it. Almost immediately afterwards, there was a referendum to see whether that had been the right decision. Had we really done what we should have done? Throughout that time, we heard about European bureaucracy and about how things were being done to us. There was lots of comedy about it. I remember episodes of “Yes, Minister” in which people talked about sausages and bendy bananas. It is rather ironic that we are talking about the bureaucracy of the European Union and European Parliament when, just along the corridor, we have a whole pile of unelected bureaucrats sitting in this building.
The nature of the arguments in the referendum campaign also caused me deep concern. There were stories about millions going to the EU that could be spent on the NHS instead. There was scaremongering about swarms of migrants. A lot of this was stoked up by the right-wing media, and it was received by a public who were looking for leadership. EU nationals were blamed for the strain on schools, the health service and social housing, but let us be clear that the majority of EU nationals in the UK are of working age and are contributing. Three to 18 is the age of education, but the majority of EU nationals here are not in that age group. The biggest strain on our health service comes from those who are over 70, and that does not generally include EU nationals.
When I first came to London to sit in this place, I had a flat in a building where more than half the flats were empty, because they had been bought up and banked by foreign money launderers who used them as a place to keep their investments. Those flats were empty when homeless people were sleeping out on the streets. That was not the fault of EU nationals. If we want to deal with the housing crisis, we need to build houses for  social use—for people who need houses. We need to stop building houses that are going to sit empty in the centre of London.

Alan Brown: On that theme, is my hon. Friend aware that the UK is currently most unequal country in the EU? The people who financed Vote Leave are the very ones who are going to do their best to make the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That will be the Brexit dividend.

Carol Monaghan: We know that a no-deal Brexit is going to be economically disastrous. We also know that when an economy is wrecked in such a way, people with money, power and connections are in a position to exploit the situation for their own ends. No doubt we will see that happening if we are stupid enough to leave without a deal.
Following the vote to leave, where was the political leadership? Who was countering the right-wing media? Who was reaching out to the EU nationals here? The answer is that Scotland was. On the very first day after the vote, the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, stood up and said, “You are welcome. We want you. We value you. Please remain. You are our friends, our family and our colleagues.” That is powerful. I and many of my colleagues wrote to every EU national in our constituencies. The majority of them cannot even vote for us in this place, so there was no personal gain for us in doing that. We did it because it was the right thing to do. But what did we see from the Prime Minister? We saw her talking about “queue jumping” by EU nationals, implying that they were cheating their way into jobs, and we now see them being asked to pay a £65 fee to apply for settled status. How can they feel valued with that sort of action?
The biggest issue for me is the position of EU nationals and the loss of freedom of movement—[Interruption.] The deal does not protect freedom of movement—not for EU nationals here or for our people moving elsewhere. It does not support that. My husband is an EU national. He spent 17 years in the Royal Navy as a commissioned officer, with two and a half years of that time spent under the ocean, yet he has British nationalists telling him to go home if he does not like things here, and he is not unique in that. The worst thing is the patronising manner in which people have been dealt with. He has been told, “You should be okay.” What? Because he is white and speaks English? We are not interested in being part of a xenophobic society that pulls the drawbridge up behind us.
Our universities have expressed concerns about Brexit. They are concerned about the loss of EU funding, both in Horizon 2020 and in successor programmes. They are concerned about the threat posed to the rich collaborations that are supported and underpinned by freedom of movement. Universities UK has said that over half of all UK-based European Research Council funding is received by non-UK nationals living in the UK. That accentuates the risk that we could lose out on talented and highly mobile researchers.
With the immigration White Paper, the Government said, “Well, if you’re skilled, you’ll be okay.” I have asked a series of written questions about what is meant by high, medium and low-skilled jobs. I have been told  that high-skilled is degree level, medium is A-level or HND level, and low-skilled is GCSE level. However, that is at odds with the salary thresholds that will apply. For early-stage researchers and post-docs or for early-career nurses, teachers and even medics, the definition of skills does not match the salary threshold.

Stephen Kerr: The reality is that what the hon. Lady is describing is actually up for consultation. I am sure that she and other Members, including Conservative Members, will make representations to ensure that Scotland’s interests are looked after in our new immigration laws. She is making a valid point, but she is talking about what will happen, when this is in fact a consultation document.

Carol Monaghan: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the contributions from SNP Members over the past couple of years, he will see that when we have talked about salary thresholds, the message we have sent has been strong, clear and consistent. Salary thresholds do not work, and they specifically do not work in Scotland, where people earn less than in parts of the south-east of England. It would be good if the hon. Gentleman joined us in calling for the scrapping of these salary thresholds.

Alison Thewliss: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the salary thresholds. My experience of dealing with many constituents, who are treated very shabbily by the Home Office, is that they work all the hours God sends and still cannot reach the thresholds to get their families to come over from other countries. I have a constituent who missed out by a matter of pounds and was not able to bring over their family.

Carol Monaghan: My hon. Friend confirms the point that I was making.
I want to move on to Euratom. Since the vote in 2016, I have regularly raised issues about Euratom. When I have asked about the arrangements for importing radioactive sources for medical scans and cancer treatments, I have been accused of scaremongering. Let us be clear: Euratom regulates nuclear facilities and materials. Outside Euratom it is still possible to carry out such regulation, but Euratom also guarantees a supply of medical radioisotopes. There are only a few reactors worldwide that actually produce them. They have short half-lives and have to get from production to use point very quickly, and Euratom guarantees that. What arrangements is the UK putting in place to make sure that we can get them here very quickly? If we do not have them, the 500,000 diagnostic scans and 10,000 cancer treatments that take place every year will not be able to happen. That is fundamental, and we have not had answers. Articles 79 to 85 of the draft agreement talk about Euratom, but there is nothing in it about future supplies and no answers about future arrangements.
I will not be voting for this deal because of the impact on our universities and our research collaborations, because we have not had any answers about the medical radioisotopes that are currently supplied by Euratom and because of the economic dangers to Scotland in being removed from the single market and the customs union but, ultimately and fundamentally, because of the removal of freedom of movement, which we on the SNP Benches hold so dear.

Owen Smith: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). I do not agree with much of what she says on the Union—I value the Union of the United Kingdom—but I do agree with her about this deal. I think this deal will make our people poorer, guarantee that we have less money to spend on the NHS than what was promised, and cede sovereignty from this country to the European Union—a deeply ironic state of affairs and not what was promised. I also believe that the deal is increasingly making our country a laughing stock across the world—something we cannot afford to be in these dangerous times.
I do not want to talk too much about economics today. Such discussion has characterised this debate and has perhaps been one of its great flaws. Indeed, one of the great flaws of the attempt to win the referendum for remain was to concentrate so much on the economics. I want to talk a bit more from first principles about the role of Britain within the world and what the deal will mean for us. As well as affecting the economic future of generations in this country, the deal will determine the role of our country in the world. It will affect whether we fulfil our historic mission to be a leading country in the world or resile from it.
I fear that this Government, whose 30-year civil war is the cause of the mess we find ourselves in, and who cling so desperately to power, will not have the capacity or wherewithal to rise to the challenge we face. Instead, they prefer self-deception and jingoism. They would rather peddle delusions about Britain after Brexit than face up to the real problems that gave rise to it, still less find solutions that might resolve them. The country cannot afford, and this House cannot afford, to indulge the fantasists in any corner of this House for a minute longer.
We are just 79 days away from Brexit and it is time—it was time long ago, truth be told—to tell the truth to the country about Brexit, because there is no global Britain after Brexit. It is a con, Mr Speaker, on your family and on mine. Brexit is a retreat from the globe, starting with disengagement from our part of it. It is a recipe for isolation and an abdication of our responsibility within our continent of Europe. At the very moment when Britain is most needed, when our influence and power might provide ballast and security for a Europe that is squeezed on the one hand by a demagogue in the White House and on the other by a despot in the Kremlin, and at a point when an expansionist China is looking hungrily at all corners of the world—a moment when we could be providing our traditional role within Europe and the world—our myopic response has been to look inwards and backwards, while lying to ourselves and our people that we are doing the opposite: that we are returning somehow to our roots in empire and, to use that dreadful, meaningless phrase, “going global”. It is a claim as facile as it is false.
The reality is that this generation—my generation—of politicians has failed our people. We have failed to rise to the challenges of our age, either within this country or, increasingly it seems, within the world. We have failed to offer an honest analysis of and realistic solutions to the problems of our country and the problems across the globe. The root cause of those problems should be clear to us all. In shorthand, it is that economic development in the east and south has created challenges to our  western economies, driving deindustrialisation, inequality and immigration. The sense of loss that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said is felt in his community is felt in mine—a loss of status, purpose and opportunity. Globalisation is the shorthand, but the key thing is that there is no shortcut to solving these problems, and Brexit is absolutely not the solution. Brexit will compound all these problems. “Stop the world, I want to get off,” is not a political prospectus or a realistic view of how to run a global, integrated economy.
The nostalgia and nativism that are so evident on the Government Benches may be enough to feed the beast of the European Research Group, but they will not feed our children. Blaming foreigners and immigrants—the other—while hawking sepia-coloured myths of betrayal and loss has been a tried and tested strategy of populists and worse the world over since time immemorial, but we surely know that it is neither right nor real. It is also neither right nor real to offer some misty-eyed romantic notion of socialism in one state, as some in my party attempted to do. The solutions to globalisation lie in collective international actions on taxation, on economic and environmental collaboration, and in the building of a new generation of institutions to deliver security, equality and sustainability in Europe and beyond.
Building walls never works, because the people eventually smash them down. Earlier generations understood that. They learned it the hard way through their experience of war and they built the means to withstand those problems. Our country played a central role in building those institutions, defeating people who would divide us on race, and defending liberal values of equality, freedom, tolerance and democracy. Now, when that project and the institutions we built need to be renewed and reformed, what are we doing in Britain? We are waving the flag and we are withdrawing from the fight. That seems to me to be neither right nor honourable.
Nor does it seem right to saddle future generations with increased debt and further decades of austerity. We are living in a situation of through-the-looking-glass politics when Ministers produce pamphlets that show we are going to cut our economy by up to 10%, while the very next day they deny the reality of their own predictions. We all know the truth. The experts do not get it right to the decimal point, but their ballpark predictions will be right. They said the Brexit vote would devalue the pound and see a diminution of investment in our country. That was true and it will be true that we will see a drop-off, perhaps as much as 10%, if we go down the route of Brexit.

Colin Clark: The hon. Gentleman mentions several statistics, but what about the 500,000 jobs we were going to lose? Does he not agree that the job numbers have actually increased? That was fearmongering. Would he like to comment on the jobs number?

Owen Smith: Jobs have increased; I do not deny that for a moment. I think there are good questions about the nature of those jobs, but the most valuable jobs that have been created under the Conservative Government, such as the manufacturing jobs in the automotive industry, many thousands of which I absolutely concede have been created in recent years, are the precious jobs that are most at risk if we exit with no deal and even if we exit with the bungled deal that is currently before us.
Isolated economies do not prosper. That is an economic fact of life in this integrated modern world. We are proposing, whatever the rhetoric, to isolate our economy from its most important trading partners. It does not make economic sense and it does not make moral sense. Never forget that this Government came to power promising to free future generations from debt. It will not be forgiven or forgotten if they saddle future generations with debt. Nor will it be forgotten or forgiven if my party does anything less than tell the whole truth about Brexit and maintain our opposition to it in principle and in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) wrote earlier this week:
“If we thought Brexit was wrong in June 2016, then it is still wrong today - just with more proof.”
He is right. There is no jobs-first Brexit, no Labour Brexit and no better Brexit. I gather the latest iteration is a sensible Brexit. Well, there is no sensible Brexit either. Brexit will eat the jobs and eat the capital, political and financial, that an incoming Labour Government will need to implement the radical programme that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are rightly advocating.
Any Brexit is irreconcilable with Labour’s traditional social democratic mission and its twin foundations of providing equality and freedom. Throughout history, different wings of my party have always understood that those tandem aims were at the heart of what we stand for. Bevan said that there is no freedom without an end to poverty. Crosland said that our job is to pursue equality and freedom. There cannot be one without the other, just as there cannot be a cake-and-eat-it Brexit. If we are to be true to that mission, we surely cannot accept any outcome that will limit the ability of our people to live and work in this country or elsewhere. What have we come to that we have a Prime Minister who tells the country to celebrate curtailing the rights of our citizens to work and live abroad? It is plainly out of kilter with reality, and it is plainly wrong for our people.
Nor should we in Labour give any succour to a policy that is fuelling the hard-right politics of hatred and repression, the enemies of the social democracy that we all believe in, not even if—I wish to emphasise this point—there is electoral advantage for us in so doing. If there is seen to be electoral advantage for our party letting the Tories carry the can for a Brexit deal that diminishes the living standards of our people and that extends austerity such that we might contest an election and win it on that basis, it would be shaming for my party to pursue that strategy. We would be sacrificing the lives and livelihoods of the people we came into politics to represent.
In conclusion, we have to be clear: Brexit is a terrible mistake for our country, and the only way in which we can reverse that mistake is by asking the people to do so. We have had two years of exposure to the failures, flaws and risks that Brexit entails. Now is the moment for my party to show leadership, to lead the people away from the brink of Brexit, to offer up the proposal that we revoke article 50 and then, crucially, to campaign and win a people’s vote and to stay in the European Union.

Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). I very much agree with his  conclusion that we need to consider the suspension of article 50 and go back to the people of this country.
As others have said, the deal before the House is a bad deal for Britain, and the Prime Minister knows that as well as the rest of us. Her own Government’s analysis shows that there is no Brexit scenario in which we would be better off as a country, and Opposition Members know that it will be the poorest of our country who will be most at risk of losing out further.
Crashing out without a deal is clearly the worst option before us. The prospect of food price hikes due to tariffs kicking in, the supply of key goods being disrupted, and huge transport delays is profoundly worrying. If the Government had handled negotiations better and Parliament had been allowed an earlier vote on this deal, the Prime Minister could have averted much of the huge costs and considerable uncertainty that the country faces. Companies are already transferring assets and jobs, notably services businesses, particularly those in financial services. Car manufacturing industries that are of huge importance to the midlands and the north, such as Land Rover and Vauxhall, have delayed investment, cut jobs and shifted parts of their operations overseas—and that has happened while we are still in the European Union. Many of us know from discussions with those running our public services in our constituencies that the shortages of staff in many of those services have been exacerbated as EU nationals start to believe that they are not welcome in Britain anymore.
The Government would have us believe that the choice is between their deal and no deal, but as others have said in this debate, that is simply not the case. They could take off the table the prospect of no deal. I believe that this deal will be defeated, and I hope that when the Prime Minister comes back to the House, she will move very quickly to rule out the possibility of no deal.
Among the many problems with the Prime Minister’s deal is the fact that we are being asked to commit huge sums of money—£39 billion and upwards—but we will be a rule taker. We will have no say on rules that will continue to have a profound impact on businesses and jobs in the UK. Crucially, none of the detail about our future relationship with our closest trading allies has been locked down. The fact that we have not even begun seriously to negotiate the future trade deal between the UK and the European Union is deeply worrying.
In my seven years as a Minister, from 2003 to 2010, I worked on trade negotiations. I attended numerous meetings of EU Trade Ministers, made many visits to the World Trade Organisation headquarters in Geneva, attended many meetings with ministerial colleagues from around the world and had many conversations with businesses here in the UK, trade experts and non-governmental organisations. Trade deals are immensely complex. Negotiations take years. Each trade deal strand has implications for other trade deals. The House should not underestimate just how lengthy and complex the negotiations with the European Union would be before any signing ceremony for a UK-EU trade deal.
Turning the non-binding wish list that is the political declaration into a legally binding trade treaty between the EU and the UK will certainly take longer than the 21 months claimed. It is true that trade experts disagree on how long it will take, but Professor Alan Winters of the independent UK Trade Policy Observatory thinks a  further two or three years at a minimum is inevitable. Uncertainty will become the new normal for export and import businesses here in the UK.
Not only are the issues at the heart of the future trade deal between the EU and the UK complex, but the process of reaching an agreement will change after exit; the exit agreement has to be approved only by a qualified majority vote, but the trade deal would require the agreement of every EU state, each with its own specific interests. The French have already made clear that they will have demands on fishing, and Spain has made it obvious that it will have Gibraltar once again firmly in its sights.
There is then the question of services, which others have mentioned. Let us take just one example: although reform is still needed to the financial services industry, it is critical to our country’s future, brings huge financial benefit, particularly to my constituents and others in London, and creates thousands of jobs, yet there is little commitment in the political declaration to the UK and the EU trying to provide each other with significant market access for financial services. That is deeply worrying.
Quite apart from any other considerations, it is difficult to see why the UK would be offered better treatment in a trade deal than EU’s existing partners, given the most favoured nation protocol. The EU would be required to extend the same better offer to those partners, without receiving anything in return. It is a dangerous myth to claim that there are huge new trade deals just around the corner to offset the economic damage that people on most sides of the debate accept—at least privately—would be the consequence of our leaving the EU. No country will want to negotiate a trade deal with the UK until we have settled our future relationship with the EU. Indeed, 90 countries already have deals with the European Union that give them a back-door route into the UK market. Worse, the European Union will be in a very strong position in trade negotiations with us, because the backstop will protect its £95 billion surplus in goods while doing little to help us get a good deal on services, where we have the surplus. That backstop will kick in years from now unless we can agree terms.
Once upon a time, a trade deal with the US, too, was touted as easy to agree, the benefits being said to be more generous than anything the EU could or did offer. In my experience, the Americans fight even more ferociously than the French for their trade interests. Donald Trump will demand more access to the NHS for big American companies, and significant reductions in our health and safety standards; chlorinated chicken will be just the start.
Brexiteers will not admit—to his great credit, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) mentioned it—that every trade deal Britain seeks to negotiate on its own will require us to grant immigration access to our country. India will insist on it, Latin America will insist on it, and Europe will insist on it, too.
It is not just the lack of any serious detail about our future trading relationship that I worry about. The country should take seriously the warnings of the cross-party Home Affairs Committee about the implications of the Government’s deal for our future security. The lack of progress in locking down the detail about our future relationship with other security services via Europol, about the European arrest warrant and about how security will operate at our borders in the future is a significant concern.
All the great promises made by the different parts of the Conservative party have, one after another, been revealed to be little more than the emperor’s new clothes. The Prime Minister promised that a deal would be easy to get, and yet here we are, years off from knowing what our future relationship with the EU will look like. There will not be millions of pounds extra each week for the NHS as a result of leaving. The claim by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that there would be no downside to Brexit looks even less believable two years on.
Given that the facts have changed, how divided the House and the country are, and how much more we know now, I remain firmly of the view that we will have to go back to the people. It is not an abuse of democracy to have a further referendum. It would be elitist to think that we in the House know best. The divisions in our country are not a reason not to go back to the people. If anything, they are a major reason why we should. Every serious alternative scenario to the Prime Minister’s deal would take time to achieve. To allow those discussions to take place and to allow serious parliamentary discussion, the Prime Minister should bring forward urgent legislation to extend article 50 for at least 12 months. Every careful independent analysis of the benefits and risks of Brexit overwhelmingly reveals that our country will be weaker; we will be weaker with the Prime Minister’s deal, and certainly weaker without any deal. I will not vote to make our country weaker.

Liz McInnes: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas).
I was planning to deliver this speech on 10 December last year, when, three days into the debate on the withdrawal agreement, the Prime Minister suddenly announced that she was going to defer the meaningful vote and seek reassurances from Europe over the issue of the Irish border backstop. So here we are, one month later, and what has changed? It would appear very little. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister on 10 December if she would be bringing
“back the same botched deal…in January”,
which
“will not change its fundamental flaws or the deeply held objections right across this House, which go far wider than the backstop alone.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 26.]
It would seem that she has done just that. Nothing has changed and the Government have just wasted 30 days.
Nevertheless, in my constituency of Heywood and Middleton, the Prime Minister appears to have achieved what seemed impossible two and a half years ago: she has united both sides of the referendum debate in opposition to her botched deal. Although 60% of my constituents voted to leave, both leavers and remainers in my constituency are urging me to vote against this deal. Of the hundreds of messages I have received, the majority are asking me to vote against, with only around 20% being in favour.
The British people were promised at the time of the referendum that Brexit would deliver a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU; the exact same benefits we currently have as members of the single market and customs union; fair management of migration; rights and protections defended and maintained;  national security protected and cross-border crime tackled; and that it would work for all regions and nations of the UK. Those are Labour’s six tests, which are routinely mocked by the Prime Minister and the Conservative party. Those six tests merely set out what the electorate were promised during the referendum campaign. People were told that life in the UK would be vastly improved by leaving the EU, so our six tests actually set a pretty low bar in just asking that the British people be given what was promised—no more and no less. So when the Tories mock our six tests, are they really pouring scorn on the electorate for being so gullible as to fall for the promises of the leave campaign?
EU nationals living and working in my constituency have voiced to me their concerns about their future in the UK. My constituent Regine May, who has worked as an academic for the last 20 years educating our students, expressed her outrage to me at being described by the Prime Minister as a “queue-jumper”, and a staff member at Middleton library asked me whether she would still be able to travel to and from the UK using her German passport. The withdrawal agreement provides no clarity and no reassurance, and nor does the invitation issued over the Christmas period to EU nationals to “pay to stay” under the EU settlement scheme. The Government try to dismiss those and other concerns as “Project Fear”, but they need to wake up to Project Reality.
We have seen unseemly jostling for the Tory leadership as a result of the chaos that has been caused. The Prime Minister has survived a leadership challenge, and the Government have survived being found in contempt of Parliament. It seems that the Government’s policy is to carry on regardless. Over the last month the media have been full of possible scenarios that would result from the deal’s being voted down, and the Prime Minister has supposedly been on a charm offensive to persuade people to back it, but the message seems to be that we should accept a deal that is known to be flawed and that there is no plan B. Last month one of her Brexit Ministers, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), asserted that
“a responsible Government plans for everything.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 1051.]
However, this Government are saying, “Accept this deal: it’s the only game in town.” It would seem that the oft-repeated mantra of no deal being better than a bad deal has morphed into “Any old deal, no matter how flawed, is better than no deal.”
In December the all-party Exiting the European Union Committee published a unanimous and scathing report on the Prime Minister’s deal, saying that many of the most important questions about the UK’s future relations with the EU had been left unanswered. The Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), said that the deal lacked clarity and represented a huge step into the unknown, and nothing has changed since then. The Committee concluded:
“There are no realistic, long-term proposals from the Government to reconcile maintaining an open border on the island of Ireland with leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.”
The deal does not protect rights at work, and only one paragraph in the political declaration refers to protecting rights and standards, which demonstrates  the low priority that the Government have given to that throughout the negotiations. The TUC has declared that it cannot support a deal that fails to protect rights at work, jobs, and peace in Northern Ireland. It has drawn attention to the weakness of the Political Declaration, and the fact that it is not even legally binding. Working people have no way of knowing what the UK’s future relationship with the EU will really look like, and what impact it will have on their lives. The only certainty seems to be that this Brexit deal will make the country poorer, as is shown by the Government’s own economic analysis, with GDP falling by about 3.9% and every region in the UK being worse off.
The UK’s overseas territories—places such as The Falklands—did not have a vote, but they will feel the impact of decisions made here in Parliament. They are very concerned about the prospect of crashing out with no deal. Paying tariffs on their trade with the EU will have a major impact on their economies. It would be an act of gross irresponsibility for a Government even to countenance the possibility of no deal, but rejecting this Brexit deal does not give the Government licence to crash out without a deal. It is high time that the Prime Minister stopped threatening such an irresponsible act, which is definitely not in the national interest.
This deal pleases no one. In December I believed that it would be irresponsible of me to endorse it and that I should not support it, and nothing has changed since then. I will not be bullied into accepting this botched deal, because the issue is too important: our country’s future, workers’ rights, jobs, the economy, security and our international standing are at stake.

Gavin Newlands: The proceedings following Prime Minister’s questions today highlight yet again the vacuum at the heart of the Brexiteer argument in this place. Having argued until they were blue in the face that Brexit was an exercise—both in the country and in this Parliament—in taking back control, when they were faced with this Parliament taking back control, they were incandescent with rage. That highlights just how hollow their rhetoric is.
A previous Prime Minister naively foisted this vote on a public that had become deeply distrusting of politicians after decades of perceived betrayal and years of brutal austerity measures. Upon defeat, he then ran away with his tail between his legs, abdicating any responsibility whatsoever for the mess that he had created. In any event, the public’s patience with this project ran out some time ago, and millions now see it for what it is: utterly pointless and damaging to the fabric of society.
We are now well into January and drawing perilously close to 29 March, but we now have more questions before us than we had in 2016. The Government have tried everything they can to force us into a deal or no-deal scenario, hence the extraordinary scenes in the Chamber today. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), claimed that supporting the Prime Minister’s deal is a matter of honour, but it is a tad rich for the Secretary of State for International Trade to lecture us on honour, so let me tell the House what a matter of honour is. While the Tories and the Labour party are in complete disarray, the SNP is the only main party in this place that can point to a consistent, collective and coherent position, proudly representing Scotland’s overwhelming vote to remain in the European Union.
As evidenced twice in two days, the SNP and many other Members across the House will not let this Prime Minister hold a gun to our heads. We will not be forced to choose between chaos and disaster. Many Members on both sides of the House are angry at how the Government have treated this place, and the desperation exhibited earlier by the Government and the hard Brexiteers in trying to stop Parliament taking back control exemplifies that arrogance. It is clear to me and, I am sure, most people in here that a minority of the public now want to leave the European Union. Indeed, up to 70% of Scots would now vote to remain if they were given another chance.
This Government’s current course of action has been taken only because the Prime Minister is running scared from her own party. Make no mistake, however: the Leader of the Opposition is now as much to blame for the position we find ourselves in. Many Labour Members and a large majority of Labour voters would like him to commit to a second referendum, but he stubbornly refuses to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) alluded to earlier, that comes despite the good work of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). He has managed to inch the Labour party towards a common-sense position, but he is struggling to get the party over the line. That just shows that you can lead the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to water, but you cannot make him drink. Perhaps he should consider what is in the interests of working people across the UK and in his own constituency.
We are 79 days away from a catastrophic no-deal Brexit that would make people poorer, but our two largest parties are leading the public on a merry Brexit dance, with Labour continually doing electoral maths on the back of a fag packet. If we crash out of the EU, the Tories and Labour will be shamed for decades to come. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) is not here this evening, but he claimed that a no-deal Brexit is closest to what the public voted for. What an utterly ridiculous assertion that is when leading leave campaign figures such as Daniel Hannan said that no one was talking about leaving the single market; when Nigel Farage repeatedly asked the public whether it would be so bad to be like Norway—I do not need to remind the House that Norway is a member of the single market; and when the former Foreign Secretary himself said:
“I would vote to stay in the single market. I’m in favour of the single market.”
Let us not hear these self-same people trying to rewrite history.
I have to say that looking back I believe those of us who advocated a remain vote were too complacent. Yes, the remain vote was clear and decisive in Scotland, but considering the relentless negativity and xenophobia displayed for years by papers such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express, we did not do enough to stand up for the benefits of the EU, and in particular not enough was done to stand up and support freedom of movement.
Every Member of this House has had the option to travel freely across Europe, and many have enthusiastically grasped the opportunity to work and build relationships across the continent. It is impossible to articulate just how valuable this freedom is. My generation, who have  largely grown up not knowing anything else, grew complacent. It is such a positive and common-sense policy that we took it for granted; our children, including my daughters, might not have that same chance and opportunity. Undoubtedly one of the biggest tragedies of Brexit is that we are ripping away the opportunities that freedom of movement provides from today’s young people. Given that younger voters voted overwhelmingly to remain, this would be an intergenerational betrayal unlike anything we have seen before.
If we end freedom of movement we will also be bringing an end to further contributions to our society from many EU citizens who might otherwise have chosen to make their homes and lives here. Migrants from across the EU make our NHS function, start businesses and enrich our culture.
With a mind to today’s proceedings and next week’s immigration Bill, I asked people on my Facebook page to give me their experiences of freedom of movement. One of the contributions I had back was from someone called Ivan. He said his life had been defined by freedom of movement. He was born in Spain 43 years ago. During medical school, he studied in Spain and Italy, but after graduating he got a placement in Ninewells hospital, Dundee. He has been working for the Scottish NHS since 2002. He has worked all over the country: Montrose, Perth, Dundee, Vale of Leven, Crieff, Kirriemuir, Arbroath. Since 2006 he has been living in Glasgow and is currently medical officer for the Drug Court.
Ivan’s family has also benefitted from that freedom. His wife is Irish, living in Glasgow since studying at uni in the late ’90’s. Moreover, in 2010 she started working in Copenhagen for the United Nations. Their first daughter was born in 2011 in Denmark. Then after moving back to Glasgow their youngest daughter was born at the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital maternity unit in 2014. The oldest has a Spanish passport, the youngest an Irish one, but both girls are Scots through and through. And so is Ivan—he is a card-carrying SNP member.
Ivan wanted me to explain why he is now an SNP voter and member, previously having voted Labour. He has been working in addictions for 13 years and he started to see two contrasting positions. For example, Alan Johnson sacked David Nutt a few years ago from the chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for presenting reputable facts that were not to his political advantage. On the other hand, Ivan saw the Scottish Government trying to implement minimum pricing against public opinion, mass media backlash and two of the strongest lobbies in the nation: the supermarkets and the drinks industry. Ivan says that if he sees a political party willingly going against its own political interests because it believes it will benefit the whole nation, he will pay attention—and that was before this Brexit debacle. In Ivan’s team there are doctors from Hungary, Germany, Spain and Italy. His name is Ivan Fernandez Cabrera. To me, and to the vast majority of Scots I am sure, Ivan and his family are every bit as Scottish as my family, my colleagues on these Benches, and even colleagues on the Benches opposite. I am grateful for the huge contribution he and his wife have made to life in Scotland.
We have been strong on this issue. The SNP is clear: we will always stand up for EU citizens and everything they do for our society. Some in the leave campaign  cheated and very probably broke the law to deliver that 2016 result, and I will concede that they were extremely effective in selling their version of Brexit to the public, but this vision was an abject lie at best and dog-whistle racism at worst. I am instantly reminded of Nigel Farage standing in front of the infamous “Breaking point” billboard, which conflated the refugee crisis with the EU and treated desperate human beings escaping conflict and seeking safety as if they were a threat. Scotland rejected this bleak, insular vision, and instead chose a different approach: Scotland voted to retain its place in Europe, a fact this Government have tried their level best to ignore since day one.
England and Wales voted to leave the EU and, should the Government get something through, are getting what they voted for. Northern Ireland voted to remain and, for good reason, may have a compromise, which we respect; yet Scotland is being dragged out against its overwhelmingly expressed will and without any of the caveats afforded to Northern Ireland.
The Scottish Government proposed the compromise of staying in the single market and customs union, which would mean retaining many of the economic advantages of being in the EU while leaving its political aspects. Again, this was ignored but, to be fair, Scotland is used to being ignored by Westminster. The actions of the Prime Minister and her Government since the EU referendum are perhaps the best example of that wilful ignorance.
The UK has lurched from crisis to crisis for years. It is clear that the UK is broken and that no Westminster Government will be able to make meaningful strides towards a brighter future, which leaves one inescapable conclusion: that to ensure good governance and the chance of building an economy and a society that is open to the world, tolerant and gives everyone the opportunity to flourish, Scotland must become an independent country.

Tony Lloyd: This has been an interesting and passionate debate, with a wide range of views expressed. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may be in a small minority among those who have spoken, but nevertheless, I know he is up for the debate.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) told us earlier that nothing much has changed since the debates before Christmas but, of course, one significant thing has changed. I am happy for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and me to be winding up this debate, but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was due to speak in the original series of debates. The change is a matter of great regret given that Northern Ireland, which did not figure very much in the referendum—although I recognise that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke in Northern Ireland numerous times—has now come to be probably the single most dominant issue. I propose to devote the bulk of my remarks to the situation in that part of the United Kingdom.
It is a shame and a mistake that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not been with us at some point in today’s debate, and I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will take that message back. It is  obvious that, although a no-deal Brexit would be very difficult for my constituents in Rochdale and for constituents across this United Kingdom of ours, it would be potentially catastrophic in Northern Ireland.
I recognise there are different views, and hon. Members from Northern Ireland have expressed those views, but I have to disagree with the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who told the House that the European Union did not figure as part of the Good Friday agreement. In fact, the context in which the Good Friday agreement was able to flourish existed precisely because, when the agreement was drawn up, both the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom—and Ireland were part of the European Union. There was no question of a hard border across the island of Ireland, and no question of regulatory non-alignment down the Irish sea.

Gavin Robinson: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene, because there is a danger that he misunderstands my point. I was referring to the suggestion that there were provisions in the Belfast agreement that specifically said there could be no border infrastructure. I entirely recognise not only the support that is given but the encouragement and full co-operation in developing mutual understanding and respect and in building relationships. Those are the grounding principles to which he refers, and I think they will endure no matter what.

Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman and I are on the same page in hoping that those relationships do endure and are not put at risk.
When I say that a no-deal Brexit would be potentially dangerous, it is not a personal view. It is a view that many people in Northern Ireland have expressed to me, and one of the most influential of those voices is that of Chief Constable George Hamilton. He has put it on the public record many times that he thinks a no-deal Brexit, with the possibility of a hard border and some kind of infrastructure—and not necessarily only on the border—would be a potential source of difficulty for his officers and, ultimately, a potential source of danger to the people of Northern Ireland and, beyond that, the people of the island of Ireland and of Great Britain, too. My constituency at the time was where the last IRA device went off in Great Britain. We are all aware of the absolute ambition not to go back to those days, and a no-deal Brexit is simply unconscionable in that context.
In that light, it is not surprising that the Irish Government have wanted to work hard on this issue. I understand why the backstop was put into the agreement; there is no disagreement among the Opposition that there is a need for a guarantee that there be no hard border on the island of Ireland. What is difficult, though, is to recognise that equally important to the Good Friday agreement was the idea that there be no regulatory misalignment between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is the problem that we are currently confronting.
The current situation arose because although both elements I have mentioned are important parts of the Good Friday agreement, the Prime Minister introduced a third element in her Lancaster House speech when she said that there would be no customs union, no single market and no reference to the European Court of Justice. In doing that, she created three incompatible  positions. With any two of those three positions, it would be possible to get a deal, but it is not possible to have a Brexit agreement that satisfies all three. That is the situation we now face. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union extolled the virtues of this new document earlier but, although I do not wish to be unkind, it says nothing new. There is nothing in it that gives succour to Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies or to those of us who believe that we should stay together as one United Kingdom in this process.
I refer the House back to the December 2017 joint report of the United Kingdom and the European Union. Paragraph 50 made it clear that
“the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.”
There was a guarantee in December 2017, but that guarantee had disappeared by the time we got the protocol. I use moderate words, but that is not acceptable. The House has to understand the emotional setting of the Good Friday agreement. It is not simply about technical trade agreements; it is of emotional significance. It is an agreement about a balance between the two communities. The need for there to be no hard border across the island of Ireland, but also no regulatory dislocation down the Irish sea, is fundamental to guaranteeing the continuation of what the Good Friday agreement achieved.

Gavin Robinson: It would be remiss of me not to intervene again. The point that the shadow Secretary of State is making is incredibly important. The rationale behind paragraph 50 was that it replicated paragraph 12 of strand two of the Belfast agreement. It is now impossible for the Government to say that they implement and respect the Good Friday agreement in all its parts, because paragraph 50, and the parts of the Belfast agreement that I have referred to, do not feature at all in the withdrawal agreement.

Tony Lloyd: Again, the hon. Gentleman and I are on exactly the same page. The Prime Minister also agreed with that viewpoint. On 28 February last year, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) asked her to
“reinforce her earlier comments”
and
“confirm that she will never agree to any trade borders between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom”.
The Prime Minister replied:
“The hon. Gentleman is right: the draft legal text that the Commission has published would, if implemented, undermine the UK common market and threaten the constitutional integrity of the UK by creating a customs and regulatory border down the Irish sea, and no UK Prime Minister could ever agree to it.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 823.]
This Prime Minister has agreed to it.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now has to explain how we get out of this morass. Frankly, it will not be enough to adopt the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), which suggests that there can be a unilateral British disruption of the “no hard border” guarantee, because of course that will not be acceptable to the European Union. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster  replies, he needs to sort out how we can unpick this. Back-pedalling may be necessary to try to bring on board votes to keep this deal going, but it will betray the principles on which the Good Friday operates, and we cannot allow that.
There has been a wide debate today about trading relationships, which are crucial. It is important that trade continues. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras tried to reach out across the House on that. It is interesting to see how much the debate has already begun to move on from the Government’s deal to the possibility of a wider deal that Parliament will have to strike. When this deal fails next week, as, I think, most of us believe it will, the House will have to begin a thoughtful process of bringing together the consensus that can take this nation of ours forward.
To return to the Good Friday agreement and the impact of Brexit, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows, this is not just about trade but about the important issue of security. In his earlier role as Minister for Europe, he told the Belfast Telegraph in the run-up to the referendum that
“the ease with which security agencies in the EU could share intelligence provided the best protection against terrorist threats.”
He went on to say that
“while extradition of criminals in Europe in the past could have taken years, it now happens within weeks.”
He said that police can also more easily and quickly share evidence such as fingerprint and DNA files. Importantly, he said this to the people of Northern Ireland—and to the people of the whole of the United Kingdom:
“If you’re outside the EU you can try to negotiate an arrangement, but you’re going to be at the back of the queue”.
As of today, because of this blind Brexit process that we have been offered, we have no knowledge of what will happen with the European arrest warrant, and no knowledge of whether we will be able to continue to use the Secure Information Exchange Network Application and the European Criminal Records Information Exchange System. Those databases are fundamental to law and order across the whole United Kingdom, but also fundamental in the Northern Ireland context. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can say something a lot more positive than simply that we can rely on a blind Brexit to guarantee the safety of our citizens.
I also say to the Government that their lack of preparation for the possibility of a difficult Brexit is remarkable. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) referred to “fridgegate” and the improbability of the Health Secretary buying in so many fridges, but at least there is some sense of preparation there. In the context of Northern Ireland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been asking for extra police for a long time. When my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) was shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, he pressed the Government on the issue many times, asking when those extra police—the Patten numbers—will be made available. At last, those numbers have been announced. But to recruit and train a police officer is about more than just a Government press release. It takes months and months to get them operational. The Government have said that they rely on mutual assistance from police forces in the rest of the United Kingdom, but as a former police and crime  commissioner with the knowledge of how stretched our police services are here in England, Scotland and Wales, I must say that the idea that mutual assistance should be the mainstay of the way in which we police Northern Ireland is, frankly, ridiculous.
The one point on which I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will agree with me is that, while there is the possibility of the armed forces being used during the Brexit process in the rest of the United Kingdom, the one place that the return of the Army would be very difficult to explain and unacceptable is Northern Ireland. I hope that tonight, the Government will guarantee that the use of the Army in Northern Ireland will simply not be on the agenda.
I welcome the 300 extra police officers, but the Government must begin to get real and say that if we are looking at a Brexit-related security situation in Northern Ireland, the PSNI needs the resources to do the job. That feeling should be common across this House. It is a matter not of party political dialogue but of common sense, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will take that point on board.
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that in some ways it has been very dry and technical. The people my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) talked about—those who felt they had been left out—simply did not know what this debate was all about. That is a really important point that this House has to understand. In the end, this is about the nature of the society that we are. One thing about the Good Friday agreement that was fundamentally important and that went beyond the technical issues, the institutions and all the rest was the process of human reconciliation; it was about saying that we can live better together than apart.

Pat McFadden: While my hon. Friend is on the point of communities that feel left out of the national story, does he agree that nobody in the European Union is preventing us from building more houses, challenging educational inequality, improving the physical environment or doing many of the things that we need to do to create a better future for the type of communities we are talking about?

Tony Lloyd: I fundamentally agree with my right hon. Friend. That is true for those in the west midlands, the north-west of England and other parts of Great Britain, and especially in Northern Ireland, where jobs, housing and decent health services are so important but are not yet on the agenda. Raising our aspiration there is of fundamental importance.
If we are to be true to the Good Friday agreement when it comes to Brexit, the present deal does nothing for the process. This deal divides people. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) about the level of hate that has come out of this debate. In Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, we have to get back to a more rational politics that builds hope for the future, but that is not on the agenda with this deal. That building of hope is fundamental in Northern Ireland. When people felt dispossessed, they turned to violence. When people feel dispossessed, they turn to despair. We know the price that society pays for that, and we know  the price that people in Northern Ireland and throughout the rest of the country have paid for that in the past. The Government have to raise their sights, recognise that this Brexit deal will not work, and move on. They must bring this House of Commons together in a way that allows us to get the consensus we need to build a Brexit that offers hope for the future to all the people of this country.

David Lidington: As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) said, this has been a genuinely interesting debate. It has been good to hear voices from all four nations of the United Kingdom. I have been struck by the fact that, from the opening remarks of the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the tone has been moderate. Even when there have been some profound differences—as inevitably there would be in a debate on this issue—for pretty well the entire period of this debate, those differences have been expressed in a spirit of mutual respect and readiness to listen, if not to agree, with what an opponent has said. To take up the final comments of the hon. Member for Rochdale, I hope that that is a harbinger of how this House might proceed for the rest of this debate and in the decisions that will face us in the days, weeks and months to come.
Many contributions so far have focused less on the withdrawal agreement than on the nature of the future relationship. When kicking off the debate, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras said that his preference was for a customs union with the European Union and close future regulatory alignment. Those points of view have been expressed elsewhere in the debate, and we heard hon. Members from Scotland and Wales reflecting the views expressed in the resolutions passed recently by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to that effect.
The key decision that faces this Parliament next week is not over what the new relationship should be in the long term. That can only be negotiated, in terms of the European treaties, once we have left membership and become a third country. What we need to do is to take a decision about the terms of the withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement is the unavoidable gateway whether to a Canadian, a Norwegian or a Chequers destination, or to wherever on the spectrum of a future relationship any particular right hon. or hon. Member wishes to end up.
Nor do I believe that it is going to help to argue, as some hon. Members have advocated today, that the way forward is to conclude that these problems are too difficult and there is insufficient consensus, and therefore we simply postpone the article 50 deadline. The policy dilemmas, choices and trade-offs that face us as a Parliament and as a country are not going to go away in that time. Nor are the EU27 and the European Commission going to suddenly start to open detailed negotiations about the nature of the future partnership between us and them until we have actually taken the step of leaving, because while we are a member, we are subject to the obligations of, and have all the rights of, every other member state of the European Union. The treaties, yes, allow and encourage the EU to make trade and political co-operation agreements with third countries,  but only with third countries—it cannot conclude or, indeed, negotiate such an agreement with one of its own members.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, the House has to confront the fact that the default position both in United Kingdom law and in European law is that we leave on 29 March this year whether or not a deal has been agreed and ratified, and if the House wants to reject no deal, the House has to vote by a majority for a withdrawal agreement that provides for a smooth and orderly exit.

Chris Leslie: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: I will, and then I want to make some progress, particularly to respond to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers.

Chris Leslie: Will the Minister elaborate on something? It is not just about voting for the Prime Minister’s deal; it would also potentially be about requesting an extension of article 50. He will acknowledge, will he not, that that facility is permitted under article 50?

David Lidington: An extension of article 50 is permitted under that article of the treaty—the hon. Gentleman is right to that extent. But of course such an extension has to be by unanimous consent of both the departing member state and all existing member states. What I am quite clear about in my own mind is that regardless of what opinions were expressed here, or by this or any other British Government, the EU27 are not interested in some sort of extension of article 50. They want this process brought to an orderly conclusion because they have other things, like a future budgetary process, that they need to get on with and think about after the United Kingdom’s departure.

Stephen Gethins: rose—

David Lidington: I will give way once more and then I want to make progress.

Stephen Gethins: I respect the way the Minister is going about this, and his generosity. On the article 50 extension—which is critical, regardless of what he thinks—achieving what we all want to achieve by 29 March, and having a proper discussion and getting solutions in place, will be very, very difficult. Has he at least explored the possibility of an article 50 extension with the 27 member states?

David Lidington: I have had no discussions with the Commission or with the Council about that. The Prime Minister has made the Government’s position very clear on this particular point.

Stephen Kerr: What would any extension of article 50 mean in relation to the European elections? Surely we would not be fielding candidates for the European Parliament—that does not seem to add up.

David Lidington: There are certainly no plans to hold elections in this country to the European Parliament. In any hypothetical extension of article 50, that would be an important point for the EU27, because there could be a question mark about the legality of actions by a European Parliament in the future if not every member state had members of that European Parliament who  had been properly elected. That is yet another reason why it would not be sensible for Members of this House who advocate an extension of article 50 simply to assume that the EU27 would happily be prepared to accept that. I do not believe that that is the case at all.
I will now turn to some of the points made. Like the hon. Member for Rochdale, I want to spend a lot of the time I have speaking about the Northern Ireland question, which came up not only in the extremely moving and compelling speech from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), but in speeches from Members in different parts of the House.
First, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras challenged the Government over the paper that we published earlier today and said that he did not think there was any new commitment in it. There are two things that are completely new. On the other matters, we have put greater flesh on commitments that had already been given at a high political level. But we have not previously committed to requiring Stormont agreement to any new laws that the EU proposed to add to the backstop, and we have not previously committed to giving a restored Northern Ireland Executive a seat at the table at the committee overseeing the Northern Ireland backstop.
I accept, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did, that the paper we have published today will not be sufficient to meet all the concerns that the hon. Member for Belfast East and his colleagues have expressed, but it marks a genuine step forward in giving expression to our wish to make it very clear that we see Northern Ireland’s place in not only the political union of the United Kingdom but the single economic internal market of the United Kingdom now and into the future.
The hon. Member for Rochdale said that his personal test was that there should be no regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Of course, as he will know, there are some sectors where there is such regulatory divergence at the moment—notably on animal health and trading in livestock—for good practical reasons that are long established. One element of today’s package is greater clarity than we have given before that Northern Ireland goods under all circumstances would have full access to customers and markets in Great Britain, and that in the event of a backstop ever coming into operation, we would seek to align regulations in Great Britain with those that applied in Northern Ireland for the duration of the backstop.

Tony Lloyd: This is a serious point, not a polemical one. We now have a situation where the rest of the UK will follow Northern Ireland. If that is the case, why was that not the base case written into the protocol?

David Lidington: Because these things are about the sovereign constitutional order of the United Kingdom. They involve decisions that we in this House make and that, in respect of certain devolved matters, we would need to make in partnership and consultation with the Governments in the three devolved areas of the United Kingdom. That is why these are things that we are expressing unilaterally.

Tony Lloyd: This comes to the nub of things, and it is the point that the hon. Member for Belfast East made. If I disagree with the Government proposing any form of regulatory change that affects my constituents in  Rochdale, I can vote in this House. The hon. Member for Belfast East does not have that same facility, and that is what is different about this agreement.

David Lidington: I want to come on to talk more generally about the backstop. I am not going to hide the fact—the Prime Minister has said it openly—that this is something we find uncomfortable as a Government, but we do not believe it poses the risks to the Union that are expressed by its critics.
I want to take up the point about the Belfast agreement. The question has been raised in this debate and previously, including by the hon. Member for Belfast East, as to whether the protocol breaches the integrity of the three-stranded approach that is embodied in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is clear to me that the text of the protocol says in terms that it protects the 1998 agreement “in all its parts”. That is on page 303 of the document that is on the table. The protocol also refers to the scope for possible new arrangements for north-south co-operation but then goes on to define those as being in accordance with the 1998 agreement.
The Government’s own legal position is clear that article 13 of the protocol does not alter the remit of the North-South Ministerial Council or the north-south implementation bodies; nor does it alter strand two in any way. However, to avoid any doubt on this matter, in the paper today we have again given a commitment to legislate to provide explicitly that
“no recommendations made under Article 13(2) of the Protocol will be capable of altering the scope of…the North-South Ministerial Council, nor establishing new implementation bodies or altering the arrangements set out in the Belfast Agreement in any way.”

Gavin Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman is touching on a fundamental point. The protocol makes reference to compliance with the Good Friday agreement “in all its parts”, but as has been mentioned, paragraph 12 of strand two specifically requires not consultation or involvement but the approval and consent not only of the Northern Ireland Assembly but of the Oireachtas. When we consider new regulations and new engagement with the Irish Republic, that will impinge on north-south co-operation.

David Lidington: As I have just said, the Government’s own legal position does not pose the threat that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. Probably the best way for me to respond is, having consulted the Attorney General—who supervised the compilation and publication of the Government’s legal position—to write directly to the hon. Gentleman to set out our case in greater detail.
I oppose a no-deal exit not just because of the economic harm but because I actually believe that a no-deal exit would cause profound and possibly irreversible damage to the Union of the United Kingdom. The tensions in Northern Ireland and in Scotland resulting from such an outcome would be severe. The hon. Member for Belfast East was right to say that there was no express provision in the 1998 agreement for open trade across the border. It is also true that there was provision in the Belfast agreement for the removal of border infrastructure related to security matters.
The hon. Member for Rochdale was also right to point out that at the time of the 1998 negotiations and agreement, this country and the Republic of Ireland had been members of the European Union for many years. The single market had been established, and the assumption that everybody made at that time was that that economic order was going to continue. The question of whether border issues would arise in the event of the hypothetical departure of either state from the European Union was just not considered at the time. It was not a live issue. Indeed, the completely frictionless, seamless traffic of individuals and freight across the border has been one of the elements that has helped to support the peace-building process. We should take note of the Chief Constable’s concerns about security tensions that could arise from a no-deal exit, and we should also be aware of the symbolism of any kind of infrastructure on the border.
I want us to remain in a situation in which people living in Northern Ireland who identify themselves as Irish but have fairly moderate political views continue to support the Union with the United Kingdom. I see opinion polls and I have conversations with people from that tradition in Northern Ireland. Members can aim off opinion polls or aim off anecdotal experience, but I am hearing from moderate people on the nationalist side who have been content with the Union that they are becoming more anxious, more hard-line and more questioning of Northern Ireland’s constitutional status. Their consent, to use the key term, to the Union seems to me to be hugely important to preserving the Union, which I passionately want to do. I completely respect the argument the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) put to me and to the House, but I differ from him on the implications of the backstop.

Pat McFadden: The Minister is making an important point, because the Good Friday agreement says that people in Northern Ireland can choose to be British, Irish or both, and that “both” is hugely valuable. Is not the danger of Brexit that it upsets the equilibrium that allows people to choose to be both?

David Lidington: I do think that that is one of the downsides. I am not going to refight a campaign that I fought and lost, along with the right hon. Gentleman, in 2016. As the hon. Member for Rochdale was kind enough to say, I did actually go to Northern Ireland and campaign on the remain side there. We are where we are. It seems to me that the duty we have as a Parliament, confronted with how the people of the United Kingdom voted, is to do our utmost to find a way that delivers on that democratic verdict while, in the context of this particular debate, minimising to the extent possible the rise in the kind of tensions that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has described.
The backstop is an insurance policy designed to guarantee that we can in all circumstances meet our commitments, as a Government and as a country, to avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland. I think it also has the advantage of acting as a safety net for Northern Ireland’s economy. It does of course still take Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the UK, out of the common fisheries and agricultural policies. As I have said before, I do not think we are shying away from the fact that this is an uncomfortable solution for the  UK, but it is an uncomfortable solution for the European Union as well. Both the United Kingdom and the EU have a mutual interest in ensuring the backstop is never needed, and if it ever were, it would be only a temporary arrangement.

Nigel Dodds: I have listened with great patience to what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has had to say, and I respect the way in which he has put his arguments. However, I have to confess to a slight degree of frustration, because these arguments and some of the issues he has raised were all put in a previous debate; after three days, the Prime Minister came to the House and said that it was clear that her deal would be voted down by a substantial margin, because of the concerns that had been expressed, and that she would go away and get legally binding assurances. I have listened to what the Minister has said, and there is nothing new there; I do not think he will persuade anybody who has not already been persuaded. Where is the delivery of the changes promised by the Prime Minister? What has changed since these arguments were advanced previously?
I hope at some point in this debate, on another day, to deal in detail with all the issues the right hon. Gentleman has raised—all the anecdotal stuff he has talked about and what he has heard—because really what he is arguing in terms of Brexit, nationalism and the future of Northern Ireland is that we should just forget about Brexit. That is the logic of what he is saying. What I would like to hear from him is this: what is new, as far as what the Prime Minister promised is concerned? That is what we are waiting to hear.

David Lidington: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister will respond to the debate in the final speech next Tuesday. She has been talking to a number of European leaders in the weeks since this debate was postponed. She will obviously want to respond to the questions that the right hon. Gentleman fairly puts, either during her speech in that debate, or possibly earlier. That is the most I can commit to on behalf of my right hon. Friend this evening. I also say to the right hon. Member for Belfast North and his colleagues that there is certainly a recognition—indeed, an understanding—on the part of the Government of the concerns that they have expressed. We continue to discuss with him and his colleagues how we can seek to provide the necessary assurances about the Union that he is asking us to provide. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware of his wish to have a more detailed response to the points he has raised this evening.
I think it is worth the House reminding itself that the EU has an interest, just as we do, in bringing the backstop to an end quickly, should it ever be needed at all. Of course, the fear is often expressed, here and outside, that despite the legal obligation in the withdrawal agreement for the backstop to be temporary; despite the explicit provision in the withdrawal agreement for technology or other measures to be deployed to make the backstop superfluous; despite the duty to replace it as rapidly as possible; and despite, for that matter, frequent public statements by the Taoiseach, the European Commission and other leaders that they have no wish or interest in having the backstop as anything more than an insurance policy, we will still be trapped in it for  many years, or even indefinitely. Ultimately, this boils down to a lack of trust within the United Kingdom in the good intentions of the European Commission and some member state Governments.
The irony is that there is a lack of trust of the United Kingdom on the other side of the table, too. One of the most striking developments since the withdrawal agreement was finalised and published has been the fierce criticism levelled at Michel Barnier by Governments in some EU member states. For them, the backstop, should it ever be used, would allow goods from the entire United Kingdom, including agricultural produce, to access the whole of the EU single market, without tariffs, quotas or rules of origin requirements, and that would be granted without the UK paying a penny into the EU budget, without the UK accepting the free movement of people, and with the UK accepting a much less onerous set of level playing field requirements than those demanded of EU member states.

Alex Chalk: Is it not a fact that what from our point of view might be considered a backstop is, from the European Union’s point of view, a back door? Does that not express the EU’s concern that we would be paying not a penny piece for something that would provide a material advantage—an unfair advantage, as some would see it—in terms of access to the single market?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, that fear reinforces the concern that the EU has about the important legal principle that a free trade agreement or association agreement with a third country cannot be based on an article 50 withdrawal agreement, which was intended by the treaty to cover the necessary legal arrangements for a member state’s departure from the Union. The Commission knows that for exactly the reason my hon. Friend gives, the longer any backstop were to last, the greater legal risk it would face of challenge in the European courts from aggrieved businesses, whether in the Republic of Ireland, France, Belgium or elsewhere, complaining that that principle was being breached to their commercial disadvantage.
We should not underestimate the importance of the guarantee of no hard border on the island of Ireland and no customs border in the Irish sea. It is no coincidence that the Northern Ireland business community is overwhelmingly and vocally supportive of this deal. However, there are aspects of the backstop that are and will remain uncomfortable. If it were needed, it would mean that a portion of EU law would apply in Northern Ireland for the duration of the backstop—about 40 pages of the 1,100 pages of single market acquis legislation.
The Government, as I said earlier, are mindful of the fact that we already have some regulatory differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the country. We have sought, both in previous statements and in the package we put forward today, to identify ways in which the practical impact of any such requirements can be minimised, so that ordinary businesses and customers in Northern Ireland or Great Britain see as little change as possible.

Nigel Dodds: I promise not to intervene again, because I will deal with these points at a future date. The Minister has mentioned for the second time that there are already regulatory differences. He knows that they  are extremely small in number, and that they were instituted with the democratic will of the Northern Ireland Assembly under the previous regime in Northern Ireland. They were democratically agreed, and they are for the purpose of controlling animal health effectively. They are not part of a regulatory difference because we are under a different regime for goods or agri-food, so it is entirely spurious and wrong of him to build that argument on the basis that there are already regulatory differences. Having rules about a large part of our economy set by people not in this House and not in the Assembly is a gross offence to democracy in this country.

David Lidington: Of course, the arrangements come into force only if this House gives assent to them. This House has a say in what is proposed. Any future additions to areas of law that are covered would require the agreement of both the European Union and the United Kingdom. We have said again today that as far as the United Kingdom’s decision was concerned, we would have a legal obligation on UK Ministers to seek agreement from the Northern Ireland institutions before agreeing to any such additions.

Jim Shannon: The Minister mentions the issue of trust between the EU, the UK Government and Parliament. I say very, very gently to the Minister that there is also an element of trust between the Government and the Democratic Unionist party. There is trust in what the Government are trying to put forward as a solution, but the solution in relation to the backstop is not acceptable. That has to be addressed.

John Bercow: That that was an intervention of intoxicating significance I do not doubt for one moment, but may I just say to the hon. Gentleman that as a result of his intervention, he has helped the Minister to double the ration allocated to the shadow Minister? These are important matters, but I think the Minister is approaching his peroration.

David Lidington: I do want to make progress. I will just say in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that, as I have said to his hon. Friends, we accept and understand their concerns, and we will continue conversations with them to try to seek agreement.
All businesses in our country want certainty. Since the deal was announced, organisations in every part of the United Kingdom—large and small, manufacturing, farming and fisheries—have said they want to get on and see a deal sorted, so they can plan for the future. They are aware, too, of the risks that no deal would carry: 40% tariffs for Scottish beef and Welsh lamb exports, 10% tariffs for cars from Sunderland, Swindon and the west midlands, and the inspections, regulations and form-filling that will go with such arrangements under WTO terms.
I believe that what we have now is an outcome that both those who supported leave and those who supported remain should be able to accept. Let us not forget that  people who voted to leave the European Union were a significant minority in some parts of the UK, and in some demographic groups in the population, in which the majority in 2016 voted to remain. The deal gives the certainty of leaving the European Union. It removes this country from the political structures of the EU and any commitment to an ever closer union. It ends the automatic freedom of movement under European law, leaving it to Governments and Parliaments in the UK to decide how generous or restrictive our policies should be, and it ends the jurisdiction of the European courts in this country.
For those who voted to remain in the European Union—again, they were a significant minority in those places where most people voted to leave—the deal offers a deep and special future partnership between the UK and the EU, reflecting the reality of our deep-rooted ties of history, geography, culture and democratic commitment, and reflecting, too, the fact that, for as far ahead as any of us can see, the EU is likely to remain this country’s single most important trading partner.
I believe that compromise in politics is not an insult. The deal that we have on the table, endorsed not just by the British Prime Minister and Cabinet but by the 27 other Governments of the European Union, is one that has been the product of compromise. It has meant difficult negotiations and give and take on both sides. Like most things in politics and in life, it is not perfect, but I believe that it provides a good foundation for us to move forward from the divisions and the agonies of the last two years, towards a future in which the United Kingdom and the European Union can work as close neighbours, friends, allies and trusted trading partners for many years into the future.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Amanda Milling.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow (Order, this day.)

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Anti-Social Behaviour

That the draft Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (Amendment) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 5 November 2018, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)

That the draft Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds (Information) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 29 November 2018, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.

Royal Marines: Basing Arrangements

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amanda Milling.)

Luke Pollard: It is time to put an end to the uncertainty over where our Royal Marines will be based in the future. At the outset, I pay tribute to all those who serve in the Royal Marines. As the UK’s high-readiness, elite amphibious fighting force, they offer the UK hard power options when diplomacy fails and when disasters strike. Their contribution to our country has been delivered in blood and sweat, and I want to thank the Royal Marines in uniform today; those veterans who have served for their contribution to our national security; and forces families for their support for those who have served.
Tonight I want to focus specifically on the Royal Marines base in Stonehouse in Plymouth. In 2016 it was announced that this historic and spiritual home of the Royal Marines would close in 2023, but three years on we are still not certain where the Royal Marines will move to when Stonehouse barracks close.
This is not the first debate today about the Royal Marines. Earlier my fellow Devon MP, the hon. Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), made the case to keep open the Royal Marines base at Chivenor. MPs with Royal Marines on their patches are not fighting among ourselves; indeed, there is agreement that we need certainty for the Royal Marines’ long-term future, wherever that may be. Certainty is required for 40 Commando in Taunton, as well as for those Royal Marines at Chivenor and those in Stonehouse. As the Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I am proud to make the case for the Royal Marines—the pride and joy of our armed forces—to continue to be based in Plymouth, their spiritual home for more than 300 years.
We all know that the Royal Marines are the UK’s finest fighting force, with unique and valued capabilities. I have seen that for myself at the Commando training centre at Lympstone, with the commando obstacle course and at passing out parades. I have seen it in Plymouth, with the Royal Marines at Stonehouse, the Royal Marines band school in Portsmouth, and, on a rather blustery day, on the back of an offshore raiding craft on the River Tamar with Royal Marines from 1 Assault Group.
It is with great regret that I say that the morale of our Royal Marines is suffering, in part due to the uncertainty about their future basing. I know that from speaking to many of them off duty in bars around Plymouth and while door knocking in my city. The latest annual armed forces continuous attitude survey suggests there has been a significant fall in morale across the services. Two years ago, 62% of Royal Marines officers rated morale in the service as high; now, that figure is just 23%.
Since 2010, Plymouth has been on the hard end of cuts to our Royal Navy and Royal Marines. With the cuts to 42 Commando, the loss of the Royal Citadel and the sale of our Royal Navy flagship, HMS Ocean, at a bargain price to Brazil, Ministers have cut more often than they have invested. That must not be the end of the story for the Royal Marines and their long and proud association with Plymouth.
Talk of further cuts continued last summer, when there was speculation that Devonport-based amphibious ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark could face the axe, too. If those cuts had gone ahead, there would have been a logical threat to the existence of the Royal Marines. Rumours last April that the Marines might be merged with the Paras only added to concerns that that was being lined up as a real possibility. Time after time, I have stood up in this place to demand answers but, unfortunately, Ministers have refused to rule out the loss of those capabilities. The petition I launched to preserve the amphibious ships and the Royal Marines attracted 30,000 names, the bulk of them from the far south-west.
I am pleased to say, though, that in September, after a long, hard-fought campaign, we were relieved to hear that the Government had decided to save HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. That was the right decision, and I thank the Minister for championing those ships and the Royal Marines.

Julian Lewis: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on saving our amphibious capability; I think he would acknowledge the work the Select Committee on Defence did, too. Does he agree that we all should acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who is another local MP, and the willingness of the Defence Secretary to take on board the message we were trying to relay? He even announced his decision ahead of the modernising defence programme announcement—at the Conservative party conference, no less.

Luke Pollard: Sadly, I did not get an invitation to the Tory party conference this year. I appreciate the point that the Chair of the Defence Committee makes. Our campaigns as a city are best fought when they are cross-party, and I hope that in the future the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) will be here to make the case, too.
Stonehouse barracks is the oldest operational military barracks in the country. Since the Corps of Royal Marines was formed in 1664, it has had a base in Plymouth, close to Devonport. Stonehouse barracks, which opened in 1756, was the Royal Marines’ first ever dedicated and purpose-built barracks. There were similar barracks in Chatham and Portsmouth, but Stonehouse is the only one remaining.
Since world war two, Stonehouse has been home to elements of 41, 42 and 43 Commando, and it was home to 45 Commando until it moved to RM Condor in 1971, when Stonehouse became the headquarters of 3 Commando Brigade. I am pleased that the Minister confirmed yesterday that Condor is safe; I hope he will have similar good news in due course for the rest of the Royal Marines bases.
The estate optimisation strategy, “A Better Defence Estate”, which was published in November 2016, announced the Ministry of Defence’s intent to
“dispose of Stonehouse Barracks by 2023 and to reprovide for the Royal Marines units in either the Plymouth or Torpoint areas”.
The promise to provide a “super-base” in Plymouth is much touted by Government Members, and I believe it is a good one, but we have seen little evidence of where that base will be built. As part of a major defence  shake-up, the Army’s 29 Commando will also leave Plymouth’s Royal Citadel, which the MOD leases from the Crown Estate. In answer to a parliamentary question a few months ago, I was told:
“Further assessment study work is being undertaken to inform the final decision.”
It is right that decisions about basing are taken on the grounds of military strategy by those in uniform rather than for party political reasons, but Ministers need to take a decision to address the uncertainty.

Kevin Foster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—as Members know, I am a fellow Janner, having been born in his constituency. Does he agree that, much though many of us have great affection for places such as the citadel, which for historical reasons has more guns over the city than it has over Plymouth sound, we must ensure that modern facilities are provided? It will be sad to see these places with great histories go, but we want modern facilities for the Marines, who are a cutting-edge fighting force, rather than to defend a 300-year-old barracks.

Luke Pollard: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts a piece of my speech, and he is exactly right. We need to make sure that the facilities for our Royal Marines and all our armed forces are up to scratch, and 300-year-old barracks are not providing the quality of accommodation required. It is right that in repurposing and reproviding those facilities in Plymouth we provide the Royal Marines with the finest facilities. I agree with him on that point.
Given the months and months of uncertainty, I was disappointed that a decision on basing the Royal Marines was not included in the recently published modernising defence programme. I said prior to its publication that if the MDP did not guarantee the future of the Royal Marines, it will have failed, and it did not even mention the words “Royal Marines”, let alone their future basing arrangements. That said, I am encouraged by the words of the Minister about news of their future coming soon.
The lack of clarity is a cancer to morale. Falling morale hits the Royal Navy’s and the Royal Marines’ ability to recruit and retain the very best. It affects capability, and capabilities affect our strategic options in tough times. The logic of basing the Royal Marines in Plymouth, close to amphibious ships, Royal Marines Tamar and training grounds is sound, but if a base is to be operational by 2023, after Stonehouse barracks closes, work needs to begin this year.
There is strategic importance in keeping the Royal Marines, Plymouth and Devonport together. When the defence review in 2010 reconfigured our defence capabilities, Plymouth was promised it would be the centre of amphibiosity for the Royal Navy. That is a promise that the Government must keep, and Royal Marines Tamar is a good sign that the MOD intends to keep that promise, but without a new home for the Royal Marines, it looks a hollow pledge. Plymouth and Devonport in particular must remain a centre of amphibiosity, in name as well as in strength, and that means not only having it set forth in a strategy but having the ships and the Royal Marines that make that capability what it is today: a world-leading capability that is a deterrent to our adversaries and a support to our allies.
In looking at what facilities can be reprovided for the Royal Marines after Stonehouse barracks closes, the Minister will know—because we have spoken about it several times—that I am also keen to look at the memorials in Stonehouse to Royal Marines who have died to make sure they are relocated sensitively or protected in their current location.
As a proud Janner—someone born in Plymouth who lives in Plymouth—I feel I can say that Plymouth all too often hides its light under a bushel, and then hides the bushel.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that it is essential that there remains a strong military presence that feeds into the local economy and community and that bases are not completely separate from but involved in and a help to the local area?

Luke Pollard: I agree entirely. Military bases might be surrounded by fences and razor wire, but they have bridges to the communities, connections to our economies and bonds deeper than any moat.
Royal Marine bases, such as that at Stonehouse, are part of the social fabric of our city, and I think we should say loudly that we are proud of them, we value them and we want them to remain part of the vibrant fabric of our community, contributing economic activity, expertise and the commando spirit of cheerfulness in the face of adversity to all things Plymouth.
A number of options have been or should be considered in the basing of this future super-base. Whether it is decamping 3 Commando Brigade to the Royal Citadel while Stonehouse barracks is refitted, building a new base at Devonport dockyard or Bull Point, expanding HMS Raleigh to accommodate the Royal Marines, building alongside Royal Marines Bickleigh or brownfield and greenfield options, Ministers must have a plan and make it public shortly.
Plymouth City Council stands ready to work with the Ministry of Defence, especially in assisting in land purchase, if the suggested locations currently fall outside the 3% of the country the MOD already owns. I fear there is little logic in disposing of Stonehouse barracks if Ministers seek to make a profit from the land. It will not deliver any profit and will require a significant multi-million-pound dowry if any developer is to take it on.
Royal William Yard, only a few hundred metres from Stonehouse, has shown that old military buildings can be repurposed beautifully but not without significant investment, ongoing capital support and massive public subsidy. I doubt the MOD is planning on such a scale of public subsidy for the Stonehouse site after it sells it. As a Grade II* listed building, it is not attractive to developers in its current form. Equally, the dated and historic facilities, lack of hot water, problems with heating and dormitory-based set up is not suitable for Royal Marines in the 21st century.
In conclusion, when does the Minister expect to have a long-term base for the Royal Marines announced, and what plans does he have for the Royal Citadel after the departure of 29 Commando? The Royal Marines dedicate their lives to the protection of our country and our national interests. The least we need to do is ensure they have certainty about where they will be based, be  it at Plymouth, Taunton or Chivenor. I welcome the announcement that Ministers will make an oral statement about the better estates strategy in the coming weeks, and I encourage the Minister to use all the energies of his office to ensure that Brexit does not bounce or bump this statement. The Royal Marines and their families, be they in Taunton, Plymouth or north Devon, all deserve certainty about where the Royal Marines will be based in the future.

Tobias Ellwood: I was not sure whether we would reach this point, given the proceedings earlier today, but I am very pleased that we have.
Let me begin, as is customary, by congratulating the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing this important debate. It has been quite a week for parliamentary interest in the Marines. That, I think, is absolutely fair and understandable, and reflects Members’ active interest in and passion for supporting our armed forces and the communities in which they sit. The hon. Gentleman is no exception, as he has illustrated in his powerful and passionate speech tonight.
I can say—and I could then sit down, but I will not—that answers are coming. The hon. Gentleman hinted at the fact that there will be a major statement on the rationalisation of our real estate and some of our assets in the very near future. I hope he recognises the importance of our carrying out due diligence correctly. As he mentioned, many stakeholders are involved. It is important for us to do our homework correctly and then make our announcements accordingly, because so many factors are involved.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the importance of what our military bases represent. They are not just defence assets. They provide homes, jobs and a way of life, and are sizeable communities in their own right. They often have a significant input into the local economy. They are, in essence, living organisms that have a symbiotic relationship with the wider community. Many of our military establishments—Stonehouse is a fantastic example, having been the first purpose-built garrison in the country—have been there for so long that they help to define the areas in which they sit, and add to their reputation.
Members will, however, be fully aware of the wider need to rationalise our defence real estate. It has grown over literally hundreds of years, and now represents 3% of UK land. We do not need it. It is superfluous to requirements, and indeed some of it is required for other purposes, such as housing. We need to use our defence budget wisely. It is simply not possible to retain huge defence real estate in the way to which we have been accustomed in the past—the legacy of sea, air and land assets that were often required and used during two world wars. We have therefore been obliged to conduct a wide-ranging study of Ministry of Defence land, with a view to transforming our estate into one that better supports the future needs of our armed forces.
With that, however, comes more bespoke investment. The hon. Gentleman suggested that Stonehouse was no longer appropriate. I visited that location; the shower units do not work, and Marines are living in eight-man  accommodation. That will not attract the next generation of potential recruits. It is important that we build for the future, which is why we are investing £4 billion over the next 10 years to create a smaller, more modern and more capability-focused estate.
Before I turn to the UK Marine footprint, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I echo some of the words used in a Westminster Hall debate earlier today, which focused specifically on RM Chivenor. The Royal Marines play a critical and unique role in the wider spectrum of our armed forces capability. This year they celebrate their 350th anniversary. They have much to be proud of in their long history, including a vital role in Lord Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar, securing and defending the Rock of Gibraltar in 1704, the infamous raid on Zeebrugge in 1918 that earned two of them the Victoria Cross, and the D-Day landings in Normandy, where 17,500 of them took part in the largest amphibious operation in history. More recently, in 1982, they were essential to the recapture of the Falkland Islands.
Today, the Royal Marines are the UK’s specialised commando force—our elite unit, held at high readiness, trained for worldwide rapid response and able to deal with a wide spectrum of threats and security challenges. They often operate in dangerous and extremely difficult circumstances, from amphibious operations to littoral strikes and humanitarian operations. They are specialists in mountain and cold-weather warfare and jungle counter-insurgency. When diplomacy fails, the Royal Marines provide the UK Government with an impressive spectrum of hard power options with which we can respond. To every one of those Royal Marines, and to the veterans who have earned the coveted green beret, I say thank you on behalf of a grateful nation.
The 2015 strategic defence and security review confirmed our commitment to the Royal Marines. I am sorry that there was much speculation about the future of assets and locations and about the size of the Royal Marines. I hope that the publication of the modernising defence programme has put some of those concerns to bed, with the confirmation that the futures of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion have been secured.
The House will be familiar with the family of units that make up the Royal Marines Orbat, which is heavily weighted towards the south-west: 3 Commando Brigade is headquartered at Stonehouse in Plymouth, which it is expected to vacate by 2023; 40 Commando is based at Norton Manor Camp in Taunton and is earmarked for a move; and 42 Commando is based at Bickleigh Barracks in Devon. In addition, Lympstone is home to the amazing commando training centre. The hon. Gentleman said he had visited the centre, and I have visited it too. It is an incredible place that not only trains UK commandos but attracts trainers from other parts of the world, who come to see our standards of professionalism. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned 29 Commando Royal Artillery, which is based at the Royal Citadel. Again, that accommodation is no longer fit for purpose. We cannot even get the artillery vehicles through the front doors any longer, so we cannot stay in that location. The Commando Logistic Regiment is based at RMB Chivenor, which was debated at length in Westminster Hall this morning. At the other end of the country, 45 Commando is based at Condor, which was also the subject of debate this week. Finally, there is 43 Commando, the Fleet Protection Group, which looks after our nuclear assets.
Turning to the policy surrounding the future basing arrangements, the Government made a series of announcements following the 2016 basing review, with a view to delivering a more efficient and sustainable defence estate. Subsequent feasibility work has revealed that the original plan needs further technical and affordability assessments to ensure that it delivers the Navy’s capability requirements while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. That work has been under way for some time, and as I said earlier today, further announcements will be made in the near future.
The MOD remains acutely aware of the impact of the uncertainty around the final decision, of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, on our service personnel and their families. The principles underlining the future of the Royal Marines basing plan include maintaining operational capabilities, which is first and foremost. Much though any Member would like assets to remain in their locality, we must recognise the duty laid out in the 2015 SDSR, and that operational commitments must come first. The provision of modern, enabled and co-located command and control facilities to manage small and medium-scale enduring amphibious operations is at the core of what our Royal Marines do. They must also have the ability to generate the force, so we must be able to maintain the Royal Marines in the south-west, which will provide easy access to specialist amphibious shipping and land and sea training areas that will enable the Royal Marines to generate the force and deliver the primary amphibious outputs that we expect of them.
Turning to estate optimisation, the Royal Marines will, over time, reduce their overall infrastructure asset base to focus available resources better into a smaller footprint that will be fit for purpose, efficient to operate and sustainable. Of course, the morale component of garrisoning units and their provision of domestic stability must also be protected. The hon. Gentleman touched on that. The morale of our armed forces is important, and co-locating units into smaller geographical areas allows them to support each other and focus on the collective operational output. It also provides opportunities for families to move, but not too far from each other, so that they can invest in a single home  rather than constantly having to move. All of that helps to recruit and retain people into the Royal Marine family.
This consolidation has not just taken place over the past couple of years; it has been part of a 25-year package, which will see the Royal Navy focus more on centres of specialisation. In the long term the aim is to rationalise the number of Royal Marine barracks in the south-west, as I think the hon. Gentleman understands, but also to combine military and infrastructure expertise in order to transform the places where the armed forces live, work, train and operate.
The part our Royal Marines play in fitting into the wider jigsaw of the UK defence posture has come up in all the debates on the subject, and I stress that point because from where I sit the world is changing fast and becoming more dangerous and complex. The threats are diversifying and intensifying. We are a nation that for so long has retained an ability, and indeed a desire, to help shape the world around us as a force for good, but I believe we will soon reach an inflection point beyond which our role on the international stage will be permanently diminished unless we invest more in defence. We will not be able to assist our allies who look to us for international leadership, we will not be able to defend our existing and new trade routes in a post-Brexit world, and we will not be able to robustly defend ourselves in the new arenas of conflict such as cyber and space if we do not invest in defence, and that includes investment in our brave Royal Marines.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue and allowing us to debate it, and for giving me the opportunity to underline the MOD’s commitment to our Royal Marines and our armed forces in general. We are committed to their capabilities and to their families, whose support is critical. That is why their interests and needs must be a factor in the estate equation.
As I said this morning, the rationalisation of more than 90 military locations continues, and I look forward to making a statement in the next round—in the very near future—with a detailed announcement of the number of locations.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.